|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 17, 2020 11:27:21 GMT
That's not the problem. It's that parts of the county militate towards seats below the county average of 70750 (1.03). So: - Portsmouth has 134,892 electors (1.96) and 14 wards. There is no combination of 8 wards that is within quota; so one will inevitably end up with two small seats
- Southampton has 148,179 electors (2.15) and 16 wards. So what one is trying to do here is lose just one ward and have a 7-ward seat and an 8-ward seat. This is actually very difficult, as the 8 smallest wards are located in a north-south band straight down the middle of the authority, with the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest in the west and the 1st, 4th, and 6th-8th largest in the east. I have found an absolutely ludicrous pattern that allows a 7+8 split (Coxford, Redbridge, Millbrook, Freemantle, Bargate, Woolston, and Sholing as the 7 for 66,604 (0.97), and everything else but Bitterne as the 8 at 72,002 (1.04)), but still that only takes the two Southampton constituencies up to 2.01 in total.
- The New Forest at 137,973 (2.00) has two existing seats within quota, but geographically difficult to combine with anything else to take them up to the 2.06 we need them to get up to to not fall behind.
- The existing Aldershot constituency is within quota at 67,947 (0.98) once one brings it into line with current ward boundaries in Hart district. The wards in that district are all large enough that I cannot see any way of making Aldershot larger without crossing the upper limit.
- The Basingstoke constituency is oversize and needs to lose a ward. Let's go for Basing as the most plausible option. This leaves Basingstoke at 71,402 (1.04). Sounding better, but...
- Once one takes away these eight constituencies, one is left with 722,268 electors to split between 10 constituencies. The upper bound is 72,431. Good luck.
Indeed. The 7.5% threshold solves all these problems (and many other elsewhere) Agreed. But now I've set out the problem, I have come up with a solution. It's over in Pitchfork Bait. Oh yes. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on May 17, 2020 11:35:38 GMT
Slightly diverting this discussion, but I have noticed that Labour used to do very well in the pre-1973 (New) Windsor borough council. Even winning it at least once.
Hard to imagine now, of course - where were their main areas of support?
|
|
|
|
Windsor
May 17, 2020 11:37:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 17, 2020 11:37:01 GMT
Seats like Meon Valley are under quota,aren't they? That's not the problem. It's that parts of the county militate towards seats below the county average of 70750 (1.03). So: - Portsmouth has 134,892 electors (1.96) and 14 wards. There is no combination of 8 wards that is within quota; so one will inevitably end up with two small seats
- Southampton has 148,179 electors (2.15) and 16 wards. So what one is trying to do here is lose just one ward and have a 7-ward seat and an 8-ward seat. This is actually very difficult, as the 8 smallest wards are located in a north-south band straight down the middle of the authority, with the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest in the west and the 1st, 4th, and 6th-8th largest in the east. I have found an absolutely ludicrous pattern that allows a 7+8 split (Coxford, Redbridge, Millbrook, Freemantle, Bargate, Woolston, and Sholing as the 7 for 66,604 (0.97), and everything else but Bitterne as the 8 at 72,002 (1.04)), but still that only takes the two Southampton constituencies up to 2.01 in total.
- The New Forest at 137,973 (2.00) has two existing seats within quota, but geographically difficult to combine with anything else to take them up to the 2.06 we need them to get up to to not fall behind.
- The existing Aldershot constituency is within quota at 67,947 (0.98) once one brings it into line with current ward boundaries in Hart district. The wards in that district are all large enough that I cannot see any way of making Aldershot larger without crossing the upper limit.
- The Basingstoke constituency is oversize and needs to lose a ward. Let's go for Basing as the most plausible option. This leaves Basingstoke at 71,402 (1.04). Sounding better, but...
- Once one takes away these eight constituencies, one is left with 722,268 electors to split between 10 constituencies. The upper bound is 72,431. Good luck.
Right, for Portsmouth, couldn't you take a ward from Havant and add it to PN?Like Purbrook,which would make it slightly over electorate,but an acceptable solution, maybe Portchester East from Fareham,which is massively over quota,but we'll see. Southampton looks awful, how about your admittedly awful arrangement with Nursling and Rownhams from Test Valley?And North West Hampshire is way over,so put Harewood in Test Valley to replace Nursling and Rownhams. Perhaps something from Test Valley could be added to New Forest East? Again,perhaps a ward could be taken out of North West Hampshire to account for the loss of a ward to New Forest East. Perhaps the rest of Yateley East for Aldershot,to be renamed Aldershot and Yateley.It doesn't look easy, but possible. |
|
|
|
Windsor
May 17, 2020 11:38:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 17, 2020 11:38:25 GMT
That's not the problem. It's that parts of the county militate towards seats below the county average of 70750 (1.03). So: - Portsmouth has 134,892 electors (1.96) and 14 wards. There is no combination of 8 wards that is within quota; so one will inevitably end up with two small seats
- Southampton has 148,179 electors (2.15) and 16 wards. So what one is trying to do here is lose just one ward and have a 7-ward seat and an 8-ward seat. This is actually very difficult, as the 8 smallest wards are located in a north-south band straight down the middle of the authority, with the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest in the west and the 1st, 4th, and 6th-8th largest in the east. I have found an absolutely ludicrous pattern that allows a 7+8 split (Coxford, Redbridge, Millbrook, Freemantle, Bargate, Woolston, and Sholing as the 7 for 66,604 (0.97), and everything else but Bitterne as the 8 at 72,002 (1.04)), but still that only takes the two Southampton constituencies up to 2.01 in total.
- The New Forest at 137,973 (2.00) has two existing seats within quota, but geographically difficult to combine with anything else to take them up to the 2.06 we need them to get up to to not fall behind.
- The existing Aldershot constituency is within quota at 67,947 (0.98) once one brings it into line with current ward boundaries in Hart district. The wards in that district are all large enough that I cannot see any way of making Aldershot larger without crossing the upper limit.
- The Basingstoke constituency is oversize and needs to lose a ward. Let's go for Basing as the most plausible option. This leaves Basingstoke at 71,402 (1.04). Sounding better, but...
- Once one takes away these eight constituencies, one is left with 722,268 electors to split between 10 constituencies. The upper bound is 72,431. Good luck.
Indeed. The 7.5% threshold solves all these problems (and many other elsewhere) Wasn't there a 10 percent threshold in the past? What was the major issue with that? |
|
|
|
Windsor
May 17, 2020 11:40:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 17, 2020 11:40:37 GMT
Oh, I thought Windsor was undersized!🤦♂️. In that case, my original idea was to transfer Taplow and Burnham from Bucks to Berks (South Bucks to Slough) and then create a new Slough East and Slough West seat,with Colnbrook&Poyle,both Eton wards,Datchet and Horton&Wraysbury transferred to Slough East with every Slough ward east of Chalvey going to Slough East and Slough West taking the rest plus Taplow and Burnham. But I realised that would be too small without either transferring bigger areas of South Bucks into Berks and Slough or,even worse,part of Maidenhead. Windsor and Langley isn't great on the ground, but it looks better than the other options. Langley contains one of the few wards the Tories win in an even year so the effect would be to make Slough even safer Labour but put Labour into second place in Windsor Yeah, so a little bit of gerrymandering. Although no more than giving Slough 2 undersized seats stretching into South Bucks 😂. The real problem is Slough,Eton and the surrounding area here not being in Bucks anymore. |
|
|
|
Windsor
May 17, 2020 12:00:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on May 17, 2020 12:00:56 GMT
Slightly diverting this discussion, but I have noticed that Labour used to do very well in the pre-1973 (New) Windsor borough council. Even winning it at least once. Hard to imagine now, of course - where were their main areas of support? The Clewer area had Labour councillors, certainly. |
|
|
|
Windsor
May 17, 2020 12:02:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 17, 2020 12:02:07 GMT
Slightly diverting this discussion, but I have noticed that Labour used to do very well in the pre-1973 (New) Windsor borough council. Even winning it at least once. Hard to imagine now, of course - where were their main areas of support? Clewer perhaps,I cycled to Windsor as part of my daily exercise on Tuesday and I came in from the west past some social housing,which I was quite shocked to see in a very rich town like Windsor. Also, there must have been a large working class population to support the low-paid tourist and service industries in Windsor. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on May 18, 2020 10:45:47 GMT
Clewer is the obvious one yes, but to do as well as they did back then they must have polled well in other areas as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 18, 2020 14:54:40 GMT
Clewer is the obvious one yes, but to do as well as they did back then they must have polled well in other areas as well. I'd need to have a look at the results - can probably tell from the ward names the part of town they represented? However, not sure where they might be located.... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 18, 2020 15:08:52 GMT
The pre-73 borough election results seem to be no longer available  www.electionscentre.co.uk/?page_id=3953Looking at the 1971 ones it says the file is in owner's trash. I do know that that besides the stuff in Clewer and Dedworth, there is a quite grim estate of low-rise flats right near the town centre (Mountbatten and Athlone Squares) and some slightly grotty terraced housing in that same area (probably more grotty fifty years ago than now). Think it would be the old Castle ward |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 18, 2020 15:16:35 GMT
Looking at the 1973 results for Windsor & Maidenhead, there were five wards covering Windsor which are the same wards more or less as were in use up until 2001
Of these, Clewer South was safely Labour (63% then in a two-way contest) while both Castle (discussed above) and Clewer South were very narrowly Conservative (both 51.7% Con 48.3% Lab). Trinity was a bit more safely Conservative and Park more so still against Liberal opposition, so it does look at that time as though Labour could potentially win three of the five wards
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jun 28, 2021 13:27:01 GMT
2011 Census
Age 65+ 15.0% 452/650
Owner-occupied 67.6% 301/650
Private rented 18.1% 164/650
Social rented 11.5% 522/650
White 86.9% 482/650
Black 1.7% 193/650
Asian 8.1% 150/650
Managerial & professional 45.9%
(Higher managerial and administrative and professional 17.8% 30/650)
(Lower managerial, administrative and professional 28.1% 17/650)
Routine & Semi-routine 15.2%
Degree level 37.7% 71/650
No qualifications 14.8% 607/650
Students 7.0% 294/650
2021 Census
Owner occupied 68.1% 229/573
Private rented 20.7% 184/573
Social rented 11.1% 468/573
White 81.6%
Black 1.9%
Asian 10.9%
Managerial & professional 45.5% 34/573
Routine & Semi-routine 14.5% 535/573
Degree level 43.2% 79/573
No qualifications 12.1% 540/573
General Election 2019: Windsor
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Adam Afriyie 31,501 58.6 -5.8
Liberal Democrats Julian Tisi 11,422 21.3 +11.2
Labour Peter Shearman 8,147 15.2 -7.7
Green Fintan McKeown 1,796 3.3 +0.7
Independent David Buckley 508 0.9
Independent Wisdom Da Costa 376 0.7
C Majority 20,079 37.3 -4.2
Turnout 53,750 71.6 -1.7
Conservative hold
Swing 8.5 C to LD
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 5, 2022 23:10:04 GMT
Berkshire is entitled to nine seats and a new seat is created in the centre of the county, in the Reading suburbs. Most of the remaining constituencies remain more or less intact but with varying degrees of changes to accommodate the new seat. Creating nine seats entirely within Berkshire would have been difficult as the average electorate would be close to the lower limit. This has been solved by adding some Surrey wards to the Windsor seat. Intitially it was proposed to add the Egham Hythe and Egham Town wards from Runnymede but these are poorly connected to the seat so on the revised proposals these are replaced by the Englefield Green wards and Virginia Water. Additionally this seat gains the Foxborough and Langley Kederminster wards of Slough and to accommodate all these additions loses some 20,000 voters in the Bracknell Forest wards currently included. The Slough wards are quite safely Labour and there is a sizeable Labour vote in Englefield Green too (but not in Virginia Water). This does mean that the race for second place in this seat would have been very close in 2019. The race for first place, not so much Notional result 2019 on the proposed new boundaries | Con | 27043 | 54.4% | | LD | 10059 | 20.2% | | Lab | 9994 | 20.1% | | Grn | 1633 | 3.3% | | Oth | 1020 | 2.1% |
| | | | Majority | 16984 | 34.1% |
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 6, 2022 1:54:41 GMT
Foxborough ward has been in this constituency previously, between 1997 & 2010.
|
|
