|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 26, 2020 18:21:02 GMT
I'd be inclined to have Upper Bann lose Portadown instead. It should be possible to draw two constituencies entirely within ABC that way. Then South Down can move west to take in the South Armagh bit of Newry and Mourne etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 26, 2020 19:41:50 GMT
Portadown alone isn't big enough, so you'd need to shift Craigavon too and that fades seamlessly into Lurgan. In any case, if you're doing that you're not taking a least-change approach, you're going for a wholesale reorientation of the constituency map.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 26, 2020 19:59:47 GMT
I have done a Northern Ireland map which involves realignment to new local government areas (because of the fact members can no longer upload attachments due to storage limits I have not posted the map here). I came up with:
1. Armagh & Craigavon 70,656 (succeeds Upper Bann; safely Nationalist)
2. Bainbridge & Lurgan 67,183 (new seat; safely Unionist)
3. Newry 67,411 (succeeds Newry & Armagh; safely Nationalist)
4. Downpatrick & Carryduff 67,926 (succeeds South Down; safely Nationalist)
5. Bangor & Dundonald 72,089 (succeeds North Down; Unionist-Alliance marginal)
6. Newtonards 66,852 (succeeds Strangford; safely Unionist)
7. Lisburn 67,374 (succeeds Lagan Valley; safely Unionist)
8. Antrim & Newtonabbey 71,862 (succeeds South Antrim; safely Unionist)
9. North Antrim 67,682 (safely Unionist)
10. East Antrim 69,713 (safely Unionist)
11. East Londonderry 67,349 (safely Unionist)
12. Foyle 71,398 (essentially unchanged; safely Nationalist)
13. West Tyrone 65,670 (safely Nationalist)
14. Mid Ulster 66,684 (essentially unchanged; safely Nationalist)
15. Fermanagh & South Tyrone 71,038 (essentially unchanged; Unionist-Nationalist marginal)
16. Belfast East 72,310 (Unionist-Alliance marginal)
17. Belfast North West 69,556 (succeeds Belfast North; semi-marginally Nationalist)
18. Belfast South West 70,216 (succeeds Belfast West; safely Nationalist)
Belfast South disappears in this plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 27, 2020 7:50:28 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... The problem lies in the legislation. The Commissions may take into account: "(c) boundaries of existing constituencies; (d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes." This means that, where towns, villages and neighbourhoods are split, they tend to remain so. Where local ties are already broken, there is a legislative imperative for no change. The awful boundary between Chesterfield and NE Derbyshire which splits both Chesterfield and Staveley is extremely unlikely to be changed in a 48 seat East Midlands. In a 47 seat region, only one of the communities would be put back together. Similarly the division of Chaddesden between Derby North and Mid Derbyshire wouldn't be addressed. I am more hopeful that towns like Eastwood and villages like Mountsorrel can be reunited this time. I will post something further on a different thread. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Aug 27, 2020 8:40:55 GMT
I have done a Northern Ireland map which involves realignment to new local government areas (because of the fact members can no longer upload attachments due to storage limits I have not posted the map here). I came up with: 1. Armagh & Craigavon 70,656 (succeeds Upper Bann; safely Nationalist) 2. Bainbridge & Lurgan 67,183 (new seat; safely Unionist) 3. Newry 67,411 (succeeds Newry & Armagh; safely Nationalist) 4. Downpatrick & Carryduff 67,926 (succeeds South Down; safely Nationalist) 5. Bangor & Dundonald 72,089 (succeeds North Down; Unionist-Alliance marginal) 6. Newtonards 66,852 (succeeds Strangford; safely Unionist) 7. Lisburn 67,374 (succeeds Lagan Valley; safely Unionist) 8. Antrim & Newtonabbey 71,862 (succeeds South Antrim; safely Unionist) 9. North Antrim 67,682 (safely Unionist) 10. East Antrim 69,713 (safely Unionist) 11. East Londonderry 67,349 (safely Unionist) 12. Foyle 71,398 (essentially unchanged; safely Nationalist) 13. West Tyrone 65,670 (safely Nationalist) 14. Mid Ulster 66,684 (essentially unchanged; safely Nationalist) 15. Fermanagh & South Tyrone 71,038 (essentially unchanged; Unionist-Nationalist marginal) 16. Belfast East 72,310 (Unionist-Alliance marginal) 17. Belfast North West 69,556 (succeeds Belfast North; semi-marginally Nationalist) 18. Belfast South West 70,216 (succeeds Belfast West; safely Nationalist) Belfast South disappears in this plan. What's in your Newtownards seat? The thing about the new NI districts is that only two of them (ABC and Belfast) have suitable electorates to be treated on their own (on these numbers, anyway, but I suspect the most likely change on the real figures is that Belfast won't) so there are going to be a lot of boundaries crossed whatever you do. Furthermore, every time a three seat Belfast has been proposed it's been unpopular and so if a four seat Belfast is realistically possible (which on these figures it is) it's likely to be preferred even though it ignores the city boundary. Note that the city boundary is still tightly drawn even after the reorganisation, and the division into North, West, South and East reflects the geography of the city well even if some of the details of the current boundaries (like the divided Shankill) don't. I don't think it's worth proposing a wholesale rearrangement of the current constituencies just to get two seats wholly within ABC. So I would go for something more like East Anglian Lefty 's map. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 27, 2020 10:55:33 GMT
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... The problem lies in the legislation. The Commissions may take into account: "(c) boundaries of existing constituencies; (d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes." This means that, where towns, villages and neighbourhoods are split, they tend to remain so. Where local ties are already broken, there is a legislative imperative for no change. The awful boundary between Chesterfield and NE Derbyshire which splits both Chesterfield and Staveley is extremely unlikely to be changed in a 48 seat East Midlands. In a 47 seat region, only one of the communities would be put back together. Similarly the division of Chaddesden between Derby North and Mid Derbyshire wouldn't be addressed. I am more hopeful that towns like Eastwood and villages like Mountsorrel can be reunited this time. I will post something further on a different thread. Well, yes and no. You're right that the legislation identifies these as factors the Commissions should take into account. It's not, strictly speaking, a requirement but I agree that in practice a prudent Commission would not ignore such a clear legislative hint.
However, the listing of factors that the Commissions should take into account does not amount to a directive to disregard other factors. The Commissions are free to take account of any factors they see fit, in addition to those listed, provided they are reasonable. So the uniting of a community currently divided by a constituency boundary is a factor to which a Commission may legitimately have regard if it sees fit.
I had a look at how my preferred plan treats the two towns you mention.
I have Mountsorrel ward in the Loughborough seat along with Quorn ward, so the boundary no longer goes almost through the middle of the town and the great majority of Mountsorrel is in Loughborough. Unfortunately on the south side of the town some peripheral areas spill out into Rothley ward, which is in my Mid Leics seat (successor to Charnwood); but it's still an improvement on the present arrangement.
Eastwood I can't help with. I keep the three wards with Eastwood in the name united in Ashfield, but Greasley ward, which contains a significant part of the town, has to stay in Browtowe because of the numbers. I have Ashfield already near the upper limit at 75830 so it can't take very many more electors. So far as I can see, resolving the Eastwood issue would entail a major reconstruction in this area that I don't think is called for, so I'm leaving Broxtowe unchanged from the current seat (apart from ward realignment) and Ashfield likewise except that at its far end it loses Sutton Jcn ward to Mansfield. This arrangement is good in terms of minimum change but it means that Eastwood is collateral damage. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 27, 2020 19:56:59 GMT
The problem lies in the legislation. The Commissions may take into account: "(c) boundaries of existing constituencies; (d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes." This means that, where towns, villages and neighbourhoods are split, they tend to remain so. Where local ties are already broken, there is a legislative imperative for no change. The awful boundary between Chesterfield and NE Derbyshire which splits both Chesterfield and Staveley is extremely unlikely to be changed in a 48 seat East Midlands. In a 47 seat region, only one of the communities would be put back together. Similarly the division of Chaddesden between Derby North and Mid Derbyshire wouldn't be addressed. I am more hopeful that towns like Eastwood and villages like Mountsorrel can be reunited this time. I will post something further on a different thread. Well, yes and no. You're right that the legislation identifies these as factors the Commissions should take into account. It's not, strictly speaking, a requirement but I agree that in practice a prudent Commission would not ignore such a clear legislative hint. However, the listing of factors that the Commissions should take into account does not amount to a directive to disregard other factors. The Commissions are free to take account of any factors they see fit, in addition to those listed, provided they are reasonable. So the uniting of a community currently divided by a constituency boundary is a factor to which a Commission may legitimately have regard if it sees fit. I had a look at how my preferred plan treats the two towns you mention. I have Mountsorrel ward in the Loughborough seat along with Quorn ward, so the boundary no longer goes almost through the middle of the town and the great majority of Mountsorrel is in Loughborough. Unfortunately on the south side of the town some peripheral areas spill out into Rothley ward, which is in my Mid Leics seat (successor to Charnwood); but it's still an improvement on the present arrangement. Eastwood I can't help with. I keep the three wards with Eastwood in the name united in Ashfield, but Greasley ward, which contains a significant part of the town, has to stay in Browtowe because of the numbers. I have Ashfield already near the upper limit at 75830 so it can't take very many more electors. So far as I can see, resolving the Eastwood issue would entail a major reconstruction in this area that I don't think is called for, so I'm leaving Broxtowe unchanged from the current seat (apart from ward realignment) and Ashfield likewise except that at its far end it loses Sutton Jcn ward to Mansfield. This arrangement is good in terms of minimum change but it means that Eastwood is collateral damage. Sorry.
Islington, it's not only Eastwood which is damaged in your plan. By removing the Sutton Junction and Harlow Wood ward from Ashfield, you also damage Sutton in Ashfield. I argued, some time ago, that Nottinghamshire is neater if the City of Nottingham and the Borough of Broxtowe have four seats between them. This then reunites Eastwood and removes the need to divide Sutton in Ashfield. It does shuffle up the problem towards Mansfield. In my 48 seat version, I give Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill ward to Ashfield which is awkward. In the 47 seat version, it's Oakham ward which is quite a lot worse. But, either way, I end up with only one town (Mansfield) divided. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 30, 2020 10:02:08 GMT
Islington, it's not only Eastwood which is damaged in your plan. By removing the Sutton Junction and Harlow Wood ward from Ashfield, you also damage Sutton in Ashfield. I argued, some time ago, that Nottinghamshire is neater if the City of Nottingham and the Borough of Broxtowe have four seats between them. This then reunites Eastwood and removes the need to divide Sutton in Ashfield. It does shuffle up the problem towards Mansfield. In my 48 seat version, I give Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill ward to Ashfield which is awkward. In the 47 seat version, it's Oakham ward which is quite a lot worse. But, either way, I end up with only one town (Mansfield) divided. I don't disagree with these criticisms, and in particular I acknowledge the undesirability of separating Sutton Jcn from the rest of Sutton in Ashfield. But Mansfield is just as entitled as Sutton in Ashfield to respect for its integrity as a town, and I'd point out that minimizing changes to existing boundaries is also a virtue under the rules.
In fact, if I were to self-criticize my own preferred plan as a whole, I'd say that at some points (I'm thinking particularly of the Thanets but there are others) it could and probably should have had more regard for existing boundaries. I'll try to bear this in mind when we all do the whole thing again, this time for real, in a few months.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 30, 2020 11:28:35 GMT
Islington, it's not only Eastwood which is damaged in your plan. By removing the Sutton Junction and Harlow Wood ward from Ashfield, you also damage Sutton in Ashfield. I argued, some time ago, that Nottinghamshire is neater if the City of Nottingham and the Borough of Broxtowe have four seats between them. This then reunites Eastwood and removes the need to divide Sutton in Ashfield. It does shuffle up the problem towards Mansfield. In my 48 seat version, I give Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill ward to Ashfield which is awkward. In the 47 seat version, it's Oakham ward which is quite a lot worse. But, either way, I end up with only one town (Mansfield) divided. I don't disagree with these criticisms, and in particular I acknowledge the undesirability of separating Sutton Jcn from the rest of Sutton in Ashfield. But Mansfield is just as entitled as Sutton in Ashfield to respect for its integrity as a town, and I'd point out that minimizing changes to existing boundaries is also a virtue under the rules.
In fact, if I were to self-criticize my own preferred plan as a whole, I'd say that at some points (I'm thinking particularly of the Thanets but there are others) it could and probably should have had more regard for existing boundaries. I'll try to bear this in mind when we all do the whole thing again, this time for real, in a few months.
Minimising changes in one county may require changes to be more drastic in a county it has to be paired with mathematically and geographically for constituency purposes. For example, minimising changes in Norfolk means drastically redrawing most of Suffolk's constituencies (my plan created two new seats in Suffolk and abolished one, to keep five of the nine Norfolk constituencies essentially or wholly intact). |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 30, 2020 11:38:10 GMT
Islington, it's not only Eastwood which is damaged in your plan. By removing the Sutton Junction and Harlow Wood ward from Ashfield, you also damage Sutton in Ashfield. I argued, some time ago, that Nottinghamshire is neater if the City of Nottingham and the Borough of Broxtowe have four seats between them. This then reunites Eastwood and removes the need to divide Sutton in Ashfield. It does shuffle up the problem towards Mansfield. In my 48 seat version, I give Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill ward to Ashfield which is awkward. In the 47 seat version, it's Oakham ward which is quite a lot worse. But, either way, I end up with only one town (Mansfield) divided. I don't disagree with these criticisms, and in particular I acknowledge the undesirability of separating Sutton Jcn from the rest of Sutton in Ashfield. But Mansfield is just as entitled as Sutton in Ashfield to respect for its integrity as a town, and I'd point out that minimizing changes to existing boundaries is also a virtue under the rules. In fact, if I were to self-criticize my own preferred plan as a whole, I'd say that at some points (I'm thinking particularly of the Thanets but there are others) it could and probably should have had more regard for existing boundaries. I'll try to bear this in mind when we all do the whole thing again, this time for real, in a few months.
I agree that minimising change is a virtue. But, because you minimise change in Broxtowe, you change Gedling and Sherwood. By changing Broxtowe, I manage to keep both Gedling and Sherwood basically unchanged. Your Nottinghamshire plan divides three towns - Eastwood, Sutton in Ashfield, and Newark. Mine divides one - Mansfield. But it is all a bit academic anyway. With the change to quota caused by Ynys Mon being a protected constituency and by the announcement of the actual figures for the review, Mansfield is quite likely to creep into quota anyway. By the way, I really like your Thanet East. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 30, 2020 12:48:54 GMT
By the way, I really like your Thanet East. Careful, you'll make him blush. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 30, 2020 13:39:55 GMT
I don't disagree with these criticisms, and in particular I acknowledge the undesirability of separating Sutton Jcn from the rest of Sutton in Ashfield. But Mansfield is just as entitled as Sutton in Ashfield to respect for its integrity as a town, and I'd point out that minimizing changes to existing boundaries is also a virtue under the rules. In fact, if I were to self-criticize my own preferred plan as a whole, I'd say that at some points (I'm thinking particularly of the Thanets but there are others) it could and probably should have had more regard for existing boundaries. I'll try to bear this in mind when we all do the whole thing again, this time for real, in a few months.
I agree that minimising change is a virtue. But, because you minimise change in Broxtowe, you change Gedling and Sherwood. By changing Broxtowe, I manage to keep both Gedling and Sherwood basically unchanged. Your Nottinghamshire plan divides three towns - Eastwood, Sutton in Ashfield, and Newark. Mine divides one - Mansfield. But it is all a bit academic anyway. With the change to quota caused by Ynys Mon being a protected constituency and by the announcement of the actual figures for the review, Mansfield is quite likely to creep into quota anyway. By the way, I really like your Thanet East. Again, all very fair points especially with regard to Sherwood.
As you are much more local than I am you're in a better position to say whether Balderton is part of Newark town. I assumed it wasn't, basically because (a) there seems to be a small gap in the urbanization and (b) it wasn't part of Newark MB before 1974. But even if it's not part of the town, it's certainly part of the immediate hinterland and I agree should preferably be part of the Newark seat. But this would mean finding electors elsewhere for the Melton & Bingham seat, and I couldn't bring myself to extend it north of the Trent - not so much because of the comms (there's a bridge at Gunthorpe) but because it seems such a big psychological barrier.
Even if you put Balderton in Melton & Bingham, however, you can still have Gedling unchanged (apart from ward realignments) and Sherwood changed only by the loss of Boughton ward to keep Newark within range (although this in its turn raises the question of how separable Boughton is from Ollerton).
In any case, as you say, the numbers will all be different when we do this for real.
Thanks for your kind comment about E Thanet and I modestly agree - if we were starting with a clean slate. I also think the Bootle/Crosby plan I posted the other day is preferable to the current arrangement. But the point is that our slate is anything but clean; it's covered with existing lines and I'm coming to the view that I've been somewhat too willing, in Thanet and elsewhere, to shift them when it wasn't strictly necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 30, 2020 15:58:22 GMT
I agree that minimising change is a virtue. But, because you minimise change in Broxtowe, you change Gedling and Sherwood. By changing Broxtowe, I manage to keep both Gedling and Sherwood basically unchanged. Your Nottinghamshire plan divides three towns - Eastwood, Sutton in Ashfield, and Newark. Mine divides one - Mansfield. But it is all a bit academic anyway. With the change to quota caused by Ynys Mon being a protected constituency and by the announcement of the actual figures for the review, Mansfield is quite likely to creep into quota anyway. By the way, I really like your Thanet East. Again, all very fair points especially with regard to Sherwood. As you are much more local than I am you're in a better position to say whether Balderton is part of Newark town. I assumed it wasn't, basically because (a) there seems to be a small gap in the urbanization and (b) it wasn't part of Newark MB before 1974. But even if it's not part of the town, it's certainly part of the immediate hinterland and I agree should preferably be part of the Newark seat. But this would mean finding electors elsewhere for the Melton & Bingham seat, and I couldn't bring myself to extend it north of the Trent - not so much because of the comms (there's a bridge at Gunthorpe) but because it seems such a big psychological barrier. Even if you put Balderton in Melton & Bingham, however, you can still have Gedling unchanged (apart from ward realignments) and Sherwood changed only by the loss of Boughton ward to keep Newark within range (although this in its turn raises the question of how separable Boughton is from Ollerton). In any case, as you say, the numbers will all be different when we do this for real. Thanks for your kind comment about E Thanet and I modestly agree - if we were starting with a clean slate. I also think the Bootle/Crosby plan I posted the other day is preferable to the current arrangement. But the point is that our slate is anything but clean; it's covered with existing lines and I'm coming to the view that I've been somewhat too willing, in Thanet and elsewhere, to shift them when it wasn't strictly necessary.
The problem is actually Newark. The Newark East parish ward is in Balderton North & Coddington ward. The Newark South parish ward is in Farndon & Fernwood ward. Between them, they had 3 electors at the last Review. With house building, they will have a lot more now. I wouldn't split the Boughton and Ollerton wards. Both contain parts of the village of New Ollerton. The extra electors for Melton & Bingham can be found in Charnwood Borough. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 30, 2020 16:39:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 1, 2020 16:25:30 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. I think you've made quite a few unnecessary changes there. East L'derry and Belfast W can stay unchanged. W Tyrone gains the rest of Slievekirk ward (currently split) from Foyle. Uniting a ward that's already part of it is better than adding 2 wards which aren't. E Antrim gains the rest of Torr Head & Rathlin ward (currently split) as well as Ballycastle and Kinbane wards from North Antrim. The result does look like NI's version of Chile, but part of the Glens are already in anyway so it's a more logical direction to go as Ballycastle and the Glens are linked. Belfast North gains Hightown ward from South Antrim. That ward is Belfast overspill anyway and given the precarious balance there, minimum change is the best policy. Taking out the rest of the Shankill/adding Rostulla, Monkstown and Jordanstown isn't going to fly, even though the division of the Greater Shankill is a nonsense. Belfast South gains the rest of Carryduff East (currently split) from Strangford. That avoids splitting Carryduff and frees up space for Strangford expansion. Belfast East gains Holywood, Loughview and Cultra, same as in your plan. N Down gains the whole of the Ards peninsula, same as your plan. Lagan Valley stays unchanged. There's no need to add Donaghcloney. Strangford adds 8 wards around Downpatrick including Ballydugan and Drumaness. (Same as your plan, I think.) Mid Down or East Down name change. South Down goes a little further than in your plan, adding Gilford as well as Loughbrickland and Banbridge. Upper Bann adds Loughgall and Tandragee, same as your plan. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 4, 2020 11:43:52 GMT
It's been a bit quiet around here lately, so here's a modification to my previous plan for the central Lancashire area (posted miles upthread somewhere).
 W Lancs - 73678 Unchanged both from my previous plan and from the current seat. Leyland - 73774 Compared with my previous plan, it takes in an additional ward from Chorley and the Farington area but it loses the whole Penwortham area south of Preston.
Chorley - 69159 Preston - 71825 As in my previous plan. Mid Lancs - 75170 Now includes the whole Penwortham area, making it much more of an 'outer Preston' seat. Clitheroe & Colne - 73877 Burnley & Nelson - 69330 Now includes the whole of Nelson (whereas in my previous plan Marsden ward was squeezed out). Accrington - 69405 Arguably a better boundary with Burnley than in the previous plan, although Hyndburn district is now split. Blackburn - 74925 As I had it before. Rossendale & Darwen - 75380 Loses Bacup (see next post) but gains Oswaldtwistle; I've resisted the (considerable) temptation to reflect this in the name.
This allows some changes to Rochdale/Oldham/Tameside - see next post.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 4, 2020 12:02:32 GMT
And here we see the consequences in Gtr Manchester.
 geo file onlineRochdale E & Bacup - 73622 Rochdale W - 71961 Or, you can swap Milnrow and Milkstone wards if you want to keep distinct Rochdale and Heywood seats and don't mind a longer common boundary (Rochdale & Bacup 73185; Heywood 72938). Middleton & Royton - 72805 This keeps Middleton united, a significant advantage compared with my previous plan. Oldham N - 74344 Arguably it should have Saddleworth in the name. This seat involves disruption to the existing Oldam E seat, which I'd been able to keep unchanged in my previous scheme. Oldham S & Droylsden - 74828 This is the only seat to cross the Oldham/Tameside boundary, whereas in my previous scheme there were two. Ashton-under-Lyne & Stalybridge - 71006 Denton & Hyde - 72879 My previous plan kept the existing Stalybridge & Hyde seat as is.
This scheme, as a whole (including the central Lancs elements in the previous post), involves greater departures from the existing map but on the other hand, it avoids dividing the towns of Middleton and Nelson. But it splits Rochdale town down the middle (this can be avoided but at the expense of having Milnrow incongruously placed in the Heywood seat (although the M62 provides a link)).
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Sept 5, 2020 7:28:28 GMT
It's not bad in general, but that cross-border seat feels like a shotgun marriage to be honest. And not just any shotgun marriage, but one involving Bacup; pitchforks might only be the start of it.
My feeling remains that in spite of the cultural/historical weakness of the GM/Lancs border, the options for crossing it just aren't very satisfactory, and in the light of that I think it's worth trying to avoid crossing it. 20 seats for Lancashire and Cumbria is workable, and 28 seats for Greater Manchester definitely ought to be (the average electorate you need is only about 0.01 below quota). Above I posted a ward splitting map which respected the borough boundaries; that's not going to be your preferred option, but I bet you can come up with a 28 seat Greater Manchester with no split wards and nothing as hideous as Leeds Met & Ossett.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 5, 2020 8:54:33 GMT
It's not bad in general, but that cross-border seat feels like a shotgun marriage to be honest. And not just any shotgun marriage, but one involving Bacup; pitchforks might only be the start of it. My feeling remains that in spite of the cultural/historical weakness of the GM/Lancs border, the options for crossing it just aren't very satisfactory, and in the light of that I think it's worth trying to avoid crossing it. 20 seats for Lancashire and Cumbria is workable, and 28 seats for Greater Manchester definitely ought to be (the average electorate you need is only about 0.01 below quota). Above I posted a ward splitting map which respected the borough boundaries; that's not going to be your preferred option, but I bet you can come up with a 28 seat Greater Manchester with no split wards and nothing as hideous as Leeds Met & Ossett. In truth, I think Rochdale and Bacup have more in common than either town would like to admit. I suspect I would have come up with something similar to islington's last post. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 5, 2020 11:37:16 GMT
It's not bad in general, but that cross-border seat feels like a shotgun marriage to be honest. And not just any shotgun marriage, but one involving Bacup; pitchforks might only be the start of it. My feeling remains that in spite of the cultural/historical weakness of the GM/Lancs border, the options for crossing it just aren't very satisfactory, and in the light of that I think it's worth trying to avoid crossing it. 20 seats for Lancashire and Cumbria is workable, and 28 seats for Greater Manchester definitely ought to be (the average electorate you need is only about 0.01 below quota). Above I posted a ward splitting map which respected the borough boundaries; that's not going to be your preferred option, but I bet you can come up with a 28 seat Greater Manchester with no split wards and nothing as hideous as Leeds Met & Ossett. Thanks, YL, but I'm going to resist the challenge on the grounds that I've already risen to it. I have a plan upthread that assigns 16 seats to Manchester/Trafford/Salford/Wigan/Bolton; and if we allow Stockport and Bury 3 and 2 seats respectively, as per everyone's plan including mine, that leaves 7 seats for Rochdale/Oldham/Tameside. And this can be done - I've posted it upthread, and deeply ugly and unsatisfactory it is too.
The problem is that the entitlement of these three boroughs is only 6.80 and to get 7 sensible seats they need some reinforcement from somewhere. My Plan A added the Whitworth area from Rossendale; Plan B throws in Bacup as well, also from Rossendale. Supplying the extra electors from within Gtr Manchester instead looks like an attractive alternative, but if Bury and Stockport are to be treated separately the only way of doing it is to borrow a ward from Manchester itself; and I've tried this but, so far as I can see, so far from helping it creates serious problems both in R/O/T and in Manchester itself.
So I'm left with my Plans A and B, each of which has its share of advantages and drawbacks. On balance, I'm inclined to stick with Plan A, if only on the basis that, when in doubt, one should probably prefer the option that involves less change to the existing map.
|
|
