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 7:20:36 GMT
On that note, here's yet another plan for Sheffield and Rotherham, which I'm floating rather than entirely convinced by. The starting point is to note that the border is really most porous in the Woodhouse area, Orgreave being just an extension of Woodhouse, Waverley adjoining Handsworth, and Aston-cum-Aughton not far away either. That suggests that if two Sheffield wards are needed for a cross-border seat one option is Woodhouse and its obvious partner Richmond. (Or Darnall, but what J.G.Harston calls the "Richmond polyp" in the Handsworth area makes me prefer Richmond.) I'd not looked at this before because I was worried about the extent that it would cut the Mosborough area off, but thinking about it again the tram line actually connects the resulting seat surprisingly well:  1. Kiveton Park & Handsworth 2. Sheffield Heeley & Mosborough 3. Sheffield Ecclesall 4. Sheffield Hallam 5. Sheffield Hillsborough 6. Sheffield Brightside 7. Rotherham Wickersley 8. Rotherham Wentworth I think seat 7 is better than it looks, BTW: it's basically the south side of Rotherham town, greater Wickersley and Maltby, which are all well linked along the A631 (Bawtry Road). Thurcroft shouldn't be in it, but blame whoever drew the new wards, who to be fair did a much better job than their predecessor on the whole. Nether Edge & Sharrow and Fulwood could be swapped on these numbers (just!) but I decided to post the more radical (or reactionary: that's more or less the pre-1950 split of west Sheffield...) arrangement. Manor Castle is the split ward. You could actually swap the two parts, but this arrangement uses the connection along Prince of Wales Road and unites the Norfolk Park area. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 16, 2020 10:21:04 GMT
On that note, here's yet another plan for Sheffield and Rotherham, which I'm floating rather than entirely convinced by. I was trying to remember a 'Hallam' seat I'd drawn that included the city centre, I think that may be it. You can slice the nonparished bit off East Ecclesfield and put it into Brightside and remove the need to cross the Sheffield Parkway. I really don't like that Heeley & Mosborough, but putting Handsworth with Waverley works, but I'm not sure putting Handsworth with Dinnington does. (Can sombody post a link to a JSON with the sliced Rotherham wards?) |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 16, 2020 10:25:04 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 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 Greentudorrose, I don't think you can be at all certain about any of these. There are just too many variables. Here, for instance, is a perfectly serviceable 18 seat Kent with Tenterden still included in an Ashford seat: 1 Sevenoaks 75864 Yes 2 Dartford 76166 Yes 3 Tonbridge 69467 Yes 4 Tunbridge Wells 75382 Yes 5 Gravesend 72423 Yes 6 Rochester 69713 Yes 7 Chatham 71833 Yes 8 Maidstone 74634 Yes 9 Malling 71075 Yes 10 Gillingham 71644 Yes 11 Sittingbourne 75171 Yes 12 Ashford 76019 Yes 13 Canterbury 70325 Yes 14 Dover 72763 Yes 15 Whitstable 71307 Yes 16 Folkestone 70345 Yes 17 Deal 75282 Yes 18 Ramsgate 75027 Yes ibb.co/y4L9b85 |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 16, 2020 12:10:06 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 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 Greentudorrose, I don't think you can be at all certain about any of these. There are just too many variables. Here, for instance, is a perfectly serviceable 18 seat Kent with Tenterden still included in an Ashford seat: 1 Sevenoaks 75864 Yes 2 Dartford 76166 Yes 3 Tonbridge 69467 Yes 4 Tunbridge Wells 75382 Yes 5 Gravesend 72423 Yes 6 Rochester 69713 Yes 7 Chatham 71833 Yes 8 Maidstone 74634 Yes 9 Malling 71075 Yes 10 Gillingham 71644 Yes 11 Sittingbourne 75171 Yes 12 Ashford 76019 Yes 13 Canterbury 70325 Yes 14 Dover 72763 Yes 15 Whitstable 71307 Yes 16 Folkestone 70345 Yes 17 Deal 75282 Yes 18 Ramsgate 75027 Yes ibb.co/y4L9b85There is no way that the BCE would allow a Dover seat stretching all the way to Smarden on the edge of the Ashford district (and minus Deal), nor a "Deal and Thanet West" seat. As for Canterbury & Faversham under a 650 seat review, forget it. The map I have seen is clearly just gerrymandering. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 17, 2020 13:37:45 GMT
And on a similar note, how many constituencies will be unchanged from this review (excluding the protected island constituencies of Ynys Mon, Na h-Eilanan an Iar, Orkney & Shetland and the Isle of Wight, which will henceforth have two seats)?
So far, my plans (and those of other forum members whose plans I concur with, meaning I did not post my own plans for these areas) leave only these constituencies essentially unchanged (either actually unchanged or only adjusted for new ward boundaries):
Poole
South West Devon
Newton Abbot
Bristol North West
Forest of Dean
Oxford East
Portsmouth North
Portsmouth South
New Forest East
New Forest West
East Hampshire
Gosport
Havant
Spelthorne
Hove
Crawley
Gravesham
North Thanet
South Thanet
Gillingham & Rainham
Harrow East
Islington North
Battersea
Sutton & Cheam
Carshalton & Wallington
Hertsmere
Bedford
Peterborough (East)
North Norfolk
Broadland
Great Yarmouth
North West Norfolk
South West Norfolk
Lincoln
High Peak
Chesterfield
North East Derbyshire
Bolsover
Amber Valley
Erewash
Derby North
Derby South
Cannock Chase
Worcester
Hereford & South Herefordshire
North Herefordshire
Warwick & Leamington
Coventry North East
Coventry North West
Coventry South
Birmingham Hall Green
Sutton Coldfield
Warrington North (East)
Halton
Bury North
Bury South
Bolton South East
Stalybridge & Hyde
St Helens North
Southport
Sefton Central
Bootle
West Lancashire
Chorley
York Outer
York Central
Leeds Central (Leeds South)
Pudsey
Scarborough & Whitby
Bradford East
Bradford South
Bradford West
Keighley
Shipley
Hartlepool
Tynemouth
East Renfrewshire
Midlothian
Fermanagh & South Tyrone
Total: 79 (82 including protected island constituencies). This compares to 80 (76 when island constituencies are discounted) unchanged constituencies for the 1950 general election (where electorate variances were much greater than what would be permitted today) and 66 (62 when island constituencies are discounted) for the 1983 general election.
|
|
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 17, 2020 13:46:54 GMT
Here's an attempt at Greater Manchester, focussing on respecting the borough boundaries. A couple of the borough groupings have rather awkward numbers and there are some parts I'm not entirely happy with, but it does only have four cross-borough seats: the same as now.  (a) Bolton and Wigan. This pairing doesn't actually need a ward split, but the solution I found without one moved Leigh West out of Leigh. Putting the more Atherton-oriented parts of Atherleigh ward with Atherton ward itself in the cross-borough seat seems (to my Yorkshire eyes anyway) like a better solution. The other two Wigan seats are unchanged. 1. Wigan 2. Makerfield 3. Leigh 4. Bolton South & Atherton 5. Bolton West 6. Bolton North East (b) Bury. No changes needed. 7. Bury North 8. Bury South (c) Salford and Trafford. This isn't going to be everyone's favourite pairing given the awkward numbers (it's on the low side for five seats) and the need to cross the Ship Canal. As I posted before there is a ridiculous solution with no split wards but three cross-borough seats; this version has only one cross-borough seat, in the Quays area, but splits three wards. I suspect it can be improved on. 9. Worsley & Eccles South 10. Salford North & Eccles 11. Stretford & Salford Quays 12. Urmston & Sale North 13. Altrincham & Sale South (d) Manchester. I've gone for the same split of Didsbury West ward as Adrian to allow five seats wholly within the city. 14. Manchester Wythenshawe 15. Manchester Withington 16. Manchester Central & Blackley 17. Manchester Openshaw 18. Manchester Rusholme (e) Stockport. As everyone else has it. 19. Cheadle 20. Hazel Grove 21. Stockport (f) Tameside, Oldham and Rochdale. This is tricky even with the ability to split the odd ward (I've split three) and again I suspect a local could do better. Littleborough & Saddleworth is very near the lower limit. 22. Denton & Hyde 23. Ashton under Lyne & Stalybridge 24. Oldham South & Droylsden 25. Oldham North & Royton 26. Littleborough & Saddleworth 27. Heywood & Middleton 28. Rochdale That's probably the last map I'll post in this thread... |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 17, 2020 16:10:56 GMT
And on a similar note, how many constituencies will be unchanged from this review (excluding protected island constituencies)? So far, my plans (and those of other forum members whose plans I concur with, meaning I did not post my own plans for these areas) leave only these constituencies essentially unchanged (either actually unchanged or only adjusted for new ward boundaries): Truro & Falmouth South West Devon Newton Abbot Bristol North West Forest of Dean Oxford East Portsmouth North Portsmouth South New Forest East New Forest West East Hampshire Spelthorne Hove Crawley Gravesham North Thanet South Thanet Gillingham & Rainham Harrow East Islington North Battersea Sutton & Cheam Carshalton & Wallington Hertsmere Bedford Peterborough (East) North Norfolk Broadland Great Yarmouth North West Norfolk South West Norfolk Lincoln High Peak Chesterfield North East Derbyshire Bolsover Amber Valley Erewash Derby North Derby South Cannock Chase Worcester Hereford & South Herefordshire North Herefordshire Warwick & Leamington Birmingham Hall Green Sutton Coldfield Warrington North (East) Halton Bury North Bury South Bolton South East Stalybridge & Hyde St Helens North Southport Sefton Central Bootle West Lancashire Chorley York Outer York Central Leeds Central (Leeds South) Pudsey Scarborough & Whitby Bradford East Bradford South Bradford West Keighley Shipley Hartlepool Tynemouth East Renfrewshire Midlothian Fermanagh & South Tyrone Total: 74 (77 including protected island constituencies). This compares to 80 unchanged constituencies for the 1950 general election and 66 for the 1983 general election. After several edits I now make it 77 in my preferred plan. This is just for England.
I've changed a fair few names but I think it will be obvious which seat I mean. Listed alphabetically by region.
North East (2) Hartlepool Tynemouth
North West (13) Bolton S
Bootle Bury N Bury S
Formby & Maghull W Lancs
Oldham E
St Helens N Southport Stalybridge & Hyde
Warrington N Widnes & Runcorn
Wigan
Y&H (2) Doncaster N Scarborough
E Mids (10) Bolsover Broxtowe
Chesterfield
Derby N Derby S E Derbys NE Derbys High Peak Ilkeston Lincoln
W Mids (11)
Birmingham Hall Green Bromsgrove Cannock Coventry E Coventry S Coventry W Hereford Leominster Nuneaton Sutton Coldfield Worcester
South West (9) N Cornwall Devizes N Devon SW Devon W Glos Newton Abbot Salisbury Torquay Totnes
South East (14)
Chesham & Amersham Crawley E Hants Gillingham Gosport
Gravesend Havant New Forest E New Forest W Oxford E Portsmouth N Portsmouth S Reading W
Spelthorne
East (11)
Bedford Broadland Clacton SE Essex
Gt Yarmouth S Herts Ipswich N Norfolk NW Norfolk Peterborough S Suffolk
London (5)
Carshalton & Wallington Ealing & Acton Greenford Islington N
Sutton & Cheam
The number could have been higher but in a few cases I have indulged myself to the extent of zapping a current seat that I dislike even if it could have been preserved. The Thanets are the only examples that immediately spring to mind but I'm sure there are others.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 17, 2020 16:57:40 GMT
... and 28 orphan wards.
(Is that good or bad?)
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,997
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 17, 2020 18:58:31 GMT
And on a similar note, how many constituencies will be unchanged from this review (excluding protected island constituencies)? So far, my plans (and those of other forum members whose plans I concur with, meaning I did not post my own plans for these areas) leave only these constituencies essentially unchanged (either actually unchanged or only adjusted for new ward boundaries): Truro & Falmouth South West Devon Newton Abbot Bristol North West Forest of Dean Oxford East Portsmouth North Portsmouth South New Forest East New Forest West East Hampshire Spelthorne Hove Crawley Gravesham North Thanet South Thanet Gillingham & Rainham Harrow East Islington North Battersea Sutton & Cheam Carshalton & Wallington Hertsmere Bedford Peterborough (East) North Norfolk Broadland Great Yarmouth North West Norfolk South West Norfolk Lincoln High Peak Chesterfield North East Derbyshire Bolsover Amber Valley Erewash Derby North Derby South Cannock Chase Worcester Hereford & South Herefordshire North Herefordshire Warwick & Leamington Birmingham Hall Green Sutton Coldfield Warrington North (East) Halton Bury North Bury South Bolton South East Stalybridge & Hyde St Helens North Southport Sefton Central Bootle West Lancashire Chorley York Outer York Central Leeds Central (Leeds South) Pudsey Scarborough & Whitby Bradford East Bradford South Bradford West Keighley Shipley Hartlepool Tynemouth East Renfrewshire Midlothian Fermanagh & South Tyrone Total: 74 (77 including protected island constituencies). This compares to 80 unchanged constituencies for the 1950 general election and 66 for the 1983 general election. At a quick check I made it 77 in my preferred plan. This is just for England. I've changed a fair few names but I think it will be obvious which seat I mean. Listed alphabetically by region.
North East (2) Hartlepool Tynemouth
North West (14) Bolton S
Bootle Bury N Bury S Chorley
Formby & Maghull W Lancs
Oldham E
St Helens N Southport Stalybridge & Hyde
Warrington N Widnes & Runcorn
Wigan
Y&H (1) Scarborough
E Mids (10) Bolsover Broxtowe
Chesterfield
Derby N Derby S E Derbys NE Derbys High Peak Ilkeston Lincoln
W Mids (11)
Birmingham Hall Green Bromsgrove Cannock Coventry E Coventry S Coventry W Hereford Leominster Nuneaton Sutton Coldfield Worcester South West (9) N Cornwall Devizes N Devon SW Devon W Glos Newton Abbot Salisbury Torquay Totnes South East (14)
Chesham & Amersham Crawley E Hants Gillingham Gosport
Gravesend Havant New Forest E New Forest W Oxford E Portsmouth N Portsmouth S Reading W
Spelthorne East (11)
Bedford Broadland Clacton SE Essex
Gt Yarmouth S Herts Ipswich N Norfolk NW Norfolk Peterborough S Suffolk
London (5)
Carshalton & Wallington Ealing & Acton Greenford Islington N
Sutton & Cheam The number could have been higher but in a few cases I have indulged myself to the extent of zapping a current seat that I dislike even if it could have been preserved. The Thanets are the only examples that immediately spring to mind but I'm sure there are others.
Hastings & Rye? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 18, 2020 7:58:41 GMT
Sorry, Khunanup, I'm not with you. The current H&R seat is too big at 79390, or 81891 after alignment with new wards, so has to be reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 18, 2020 8:34:36 GMT
And on a similar note, how many constituencies will be unchanged from this review (excluding protected island constituencies)? So far, my plans (and those of other forum members whose plans I concur with, meaning I did not post my own plans for these areas) leave only these constituencies essentially unchanged (either actually unchanged or only adjusted for new ward boundaries): Truro & Falmouth South West Devon Newton Abbot Bristol North West Forest of Dean Oxford East Portsmouth North Portsmouth South New Forest East New Forest West East Hampshire Spelthorne Hove Crawley Gravesham North Thanet South Thanet Gillingham & Rainham Harrow East Islington North Battersea Sutton & Cheam Carshalton & Wallington Hertsmere Bedford Peterborough (East) North Norfolk Broadland Great Yarmouth North West Norfolk South West Norfolk Lincoln High Peak Chesterfield North East Derbyshire Bolsover Amber Valley Erewash Derby North Derby South Cannock Chase Worcester Hereford & South Herefordshire North Herefordshire Warwick & Leamington Birmingham Hall Green Sutton Coldfield Warrington North (East) Halton Bury North Bury South Bolton South East Stalybridge & Hyde St Helens North Southport Sefton Central Bootle West Lancashire Chorley York Outer York Central Leeds Central (Leeds South) Pudsey Scarborough & Whitby Bradford East Bradford South Bradford West Keighley Shipley Hartlepool Tynemouth East Renfrewshire Midlothian Fermanagh & South Tyrone Total: 74 (77 including protected island constituencies). This compares to 80 unchanged constituencies for the 1950 general election and 66 for the 1983 general election. At a quick check I made it 77 in my preferred plan. This is just for England. I've changed a fair few names but I think it will be obvious which seat I mean. Listed alphabetically by region.
North East (2) Hartlepool Tynemouth
North West (14) Bolton S
Bootle Bury N Bury S Chorley
Formby & Maghull W Lancs
Oldham E
St Helens N Southport Stalybridge & Hyde
Warrington N Widnes & Runcorn
Wigan
Y&H (1) Scarborough
E Mids (10) Bolsover Broxtowe
Chesterfield
Derby N Derby S E Derbys NE Derbys High Peak Ilkeston Lincoln
W Mids (11)
Birmingham Hall Green Bromsgrove Cannock Coventry E Coventry S Coventry W Hereford Leominster Nuneaton Sutton Coldfield Worcester South West (9) N Cornwall Devizes N Devon SW Devon W Glos Newton Abbot Salisbury Torquay Totnes South East (14)
Chesham & Amersham Crawley E Hants Gillingham Gosport
Gravesend Havant New Forest E New Forest W Oxford E Portsmouth N Portsmouth S Reading W
Spelthorne East (11)
Bedford Broadland Clacton SE Essex
Gt Yarmouth S Herts Ipswich N Norfolk NW Norfolk Peterborough S Suffolk
London (5)
Carshalton & Wallington Ealing & Acton Greenford Islington N
Sutton & Cheam The number could have been higher but in a few cases I have indulged myself to the extent of zapping a current seat that I dislike even if it could have been preserved. The Thanets are the only examples that immediately spring to mind but I'm sure there are others.
Islington, I think you might look again at Chorley. If you assign wards according to where the majority of electors are, you end up with a bizarre boundary that divides Euxton: ibb.co/bQ75WgCIf you shift Euxton ward out and shift Eccleston, Heskin & Charnock Richard ward in, you can reunite the settlement of Euxton. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 18, 2020 10:22:10 GMT
Emidsanorak, thanks for this. As you say, it's fixable by swapping Euxton and Eccleston wards. That is, if you think that the drawback of dividing Euxton outweighs the advantage of respecting an existing seat (so far as it's possible to do so given the new wards). It's a matter of one's personal approach but I've noticed that I'm more willing than some posters to accept that some communities are going to end up divided, especially in areas where there's a lot of what might kindly be described as urban sprawl. In this case, for instance, I note that just up the road Buckshaw Village is even more brutally split. On the other hand, I probably give more weight than some posters to compactness as a desirable quality. We saw this in our recent discussions about a scheme that required one ward of the south side of Wakefield borough to be hived off into a Barnsley seat. I suggested S Elmsall, resulting in more compact seats; you preferred Hemsworth, resulting in a longer common boundary but avoiding the division of a village whose name escapes me. I don't think there's any right or wrong about this - it's just an observation.
Edited to add: Yes, having mulled it over, I've made this swap and I've edited the list I posted to remove Chorley. Thanks for the heads-up.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,997
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 18, 2020 23:30:28 GMT
Sorry, Khunanup, I'm not with you. The current H&R seat is too big at 79390, or 81891 after alignment with new wards, so has to be reduced. Sorry, you're right, I forgot it has to shed a ward (so it's basically back to '97-'10 boundaries). |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 20, 2020 9:28:16 GMT
Emidsanorak, thanks for this. As you say, it's fixable by swapping Euxton and Eccleston wards. That is, if you think that the drawback of dividing Euxton outweighs the advantage of respecting an existing seat (so far as it's possible to do so given the new wards). It's a matter of one's personal approach but I've noticed that I'm more willing than some posters to accept that some communities are going to end up divided, especially in areas where there's a lot of what might kindly be described as urban sprawl. In this case, for instance, I note that just up the road Buckshaw Village is even more brutally split. On the other hand, I probably give more weight than some posters to compactness as a desirable quality. We saw this in our recent discussions about a scheme that required one ward of the south side of Wakefield borough to be hived off into a Barnsley seat. I suggested S Elmsall, resulting in more compact seats; you preferred Hemsworth, resulting in a longer common boundary but avoiding the division of a village whose name escapes me. I don't think there's any right or wrong about this - it's just an observation. Edited to add: Yes, having mulled it over, I've made this swap and I've edited the list I posted to remove Chorley. Thanks for the heads-up.
Islington, you are right that the boundary around Buckshaw and Worden is horrible, but it is not only between existing constituencies, it is between local authorities. In my 73 seat North West, I reunite it at the expense of a ghastly boundary in the Lucas Green area of Whittle-le-Woods, but in the 74 seat version I don't. I'll think further and post something on the issue of dividing communities in the Boundary-drawing policy issues thread. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 20, 2020 16:52:24 GMT
Thanks, I'll look forward to it.
I'm thinking of putting something similar in that thread myself, basically reflecting on the interplay between the various factors that one is obliged to, or might reasonably want to, take into account:
- the 5% tolerance
- respect for local government boundaries, including those of wards
- respect for existing constituency boundaries (not just the exact boundary but the overall scheme for an area)
- respect for communities
- internal connectivity
- compactness.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 21, 2020 6:39:28 GMT
Emidsanorak, thanks for this. As you say, it's fixable by swapping Euxton and Eccleston wards. That is, if you think that the drawback of dividing Euxton outweighs the advantage of respecting an existing seat (so far as it's possible to do so given the new wards). It's a matter of one's personal approach but I've noticed that I'm more willing than some posters to accept that some communities are going to end up divided, especially in areas where there's a lot of what might kindly be described as urban sprawl. In this case, for instance, I note that just up the road Buckshaw Village is even more brutally split. On the other hand, I probably give more weight than some posters to compactness as a desirable quality. We saw this in our recent discussions about a scheme that required one ward of the south side of Wakefield borough to be hived off into a Barnsley seat. I suggested S Elmsall, resulting in more compact seats; you preferred Hemsworth, resulting in a longer common boundary but avoiding the division of a village whose name escapes me. I don't think there's any right or wrong about this - it's just an observation. Edited to add: Yes, having mulled it over, I've made this swap and I've edited the list I posted to remove Chorley. Thanks for the heads-up.
Islington, you are right that the boundary around Buckshaw and Worden is horrible, but it is not only between existing constituencies, it is between local authorities. In my 73 seat North West, I reunite it at the expense of a ghastly boundary in the Lucas Green area of Whittle-le-Woods, but in the 74 seat version I don't. I'll think further and post something on the issue of dividing communities in the Boundary-drawing policy issues thread. Buckshaw didn't exist fifteen years ago when the current seats were drawn up, so "reunite" is probably not the right word here. What it really needs is a recast of the administrative boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 25, 2020 11:13:15 GMT
Playing with Boundary Assistant (as one does), I was looking at some of the unchanged seats in my plan, just to verify that they are good to leave as they are.
Sefton's three seats are all within range so the natural thing is simply to keep them unchanged, which is what I've done.
But on closer examination I see that there's a boundary right through the heart of Crosby. Now, I know I'm more accepting than some posters of this kind of community division, especially when the place affected is part of general urban sprawl as opposed to being a distinct town in its own right. But in this case, Crosby is much more of a distinct town than, say, Outwood; so I was wondering whether there would be merit in swapping Victoria and Molyneux wards. Admittedly this configuration would give Bootle a somewhat straggling appearance but it would keep the main part of Crosby together.
It's fine on the numbers - Bootle - 74570 Crosby (as one might then call it) - 70927
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 25, 2020 11:49:36 GMT
Playing with Boundary Assistant (as one does), I was looking at some of the unchanged seats in my plan, just to verify that they are good to leave as they are. Sefton's three seats are all within range so the natural thing is simply to keep them unchanged, which is what I've done. But on closer examination I see that there's a boundary right through the heart of Crosby. Now, I know I'm more accepting than some posters of this kind of community division, especially when the place affected is part of general urban sprawl as opposed to being a distinct town in its own right. But in this case, Crosby is much more of a distinct town than, say, Outwood; so I was wondering whether there would be merit in swapping Victoria and Molyneux wards. Admittedly this configuration would give Bootle a somewhat straggling appearance but it would keep the main part of Crosby together. It's fine on the numbers - Bootle - 74570 Crosby (as one might then call it) - 70927 Thoughts?
It would still leave a section of Crosby in Bootle so unless there is a way of bringing all of them together perhaps by splitting Church Ward then best to leave alone. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 25, 2020 13:04:42 GMT
Playing with Boundary Assistant (as one does), I was looking at some of the unchanged seats in my plan, just to verify that they are good to leave as they are.
Sefton's three seats are all within range so the natural thing is simply to keep them unchanged, which is what I've done.
But on closer examination I see that there's a boundary right through the heart of Crosby. Now, I know I'm more accepting than some posters of this kind of community division, especially when the place affected is part of general urban sprawl as opposed to being a distinct town in its own right. But in this case, Crosby is much more of a distinct town than, say, Outwood; so I was wondering whether there would be merit in swapping Victoria and Molyneux wards. Admittedly this configuration would give Bootle a somewhat straggling appearance but it would keep the main part of Crosby together.
It's fine on the numbers - Bootle - 74570 Crosby (as one might then call it) - 70927
Thoughts? I think these kinds of proposals are often a waste of time. The Sefton seats underwent consultation and for various reasons it was determined that they were the best arrangement. So it's not something that people will want to revisit. One example that comes to mind from that same review is that I suggested an alternative to splitting Staveley (Derbyshire) but people seemed quite happy to split Staveley... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 26, 2020 16:57:25 GMT
I may have missed it, but I'm not sure anybody has done a Northern Ireland map yet. Boundary Assistant only has the 2015 figures, but they're probably alright here as most areas have reasonably stable electorates. I worked from something broadly resembling a minimum change approach, but tried where possible to realign constituencies with the new local authority boundaries. I wasn't too aggressive about this, however - you could theoretically have Armagh, Banbridge & Craigavon stand alone for 2 seats, but I doubt anybody really wants the Armagh & Banbridge seat that would require. Similarly, three Belfast seats is easy to do, but none of the parties want that so it isn't going to happen.  Foyle (71398) - no change West Tyrone (68206) - gains two wards round Claudy Fermanagh & Omagh (71038) - no change Mid Ulster (66884) - no change Coleraine (69752) - successor to East Londonderry, stretches along the coast as far as Ballycastle so the old name isn't really appropriate North Antrim (67645) - gains the Cushenden area, loses areas east of Ballymena East Antrim (67741) - pulls out of Newtownabbey, gains Ballyclare instead South Antrim (67191) - loses Ballyclare, gains the bulk of Glengormley Belfast North (67007) - the southern boundary becomes the Crumlin Road, it takes in the eastern half of Newtownabbey Belfast West (68825) - extends north to the Crumlin Road Belfast South (71255) - minor alterations, mostly east of Carryduff Belfast East (69406) - gains Holywood North Down (70529) - loses Holywood, gains Ards Peninsula Mid Down (68148) - successor to Strangford, losing the Ards Peninsula but gaining the Downpatrick area Lagan Valley (68821) - comparatively minor changes South Down (67583) - loses Downpatrick, gains Banbridge Newry & Armagh (71959) - loses Tandragee and Loughgall Upper Bann (70181) - loses Banbridge, gains Tandragee and Loughgall There's enough in there for everybody to find something to hate. Putting the entirety of the Shankill into Belfast West would certainly be provocative, even if it's an obvious change to make, but I doubt Sinn Fein would be particularly keen on the changes I made in Newtownabbey. I'm not sure anybody would be happy with Banbridge going into South Down, with the possible exception of SDLP activists with slightly too much faith in unionist tactical voting, and I suspect SF would also be unhappy about Mid Down as there aren't enough votes to make them competitive. However, the lines are relatively clean, except round Newtonards where the ward shapes make it very difficult to avoid splitting the town, and I don't think it particularly puts a thumb on the scales in favour of any one party. |
|
