J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,780 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 12:00:18 GMT
Sheffield being able to have six constituencies to itself. Woo Hoo! Wait... 28 divided by six. Bugger! Good job we did a good job drawing up wards containing a whole number of discrete communities that can be split and paired...... |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 5, 2021 12:08:23 GMT
Yes looks like any chance of persuading the BCE to ignore the “regions” is hopeless. So no chance of linking Cleveland with North Yorkshire, or Milton Keynes with Northamptonshire, or north Lincolnshire with south Lincolnshire, all of which would be sensible. But, do (N/n)orth Lincolnshire and Cleveland come to a whole number of seats so they can be sort-of grouped off with their neighbour? I haven’t looked at the latest data yet. They did on the December 2019 data. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 5, 2021 12:21:15 GMT
Sheffield being able to have six constituencies to itself. Woo Hoo! Wait... 28 divided by six. Bugger! Good job we did a good job drawing up wards containing a whole number of discrete communities that can be split and paired...... Don't worry, JG. I'm sure by swapping out a few Sheffield wards and swapping in wards from Barnsley and Rotherham we'll be able to get everything to fit without any splits. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,098
|
Post by ilerda on Jan 5, 2021 12:21:25 GMT
Sheffield being able to have six constituencies to itself. Woo Hoo! Wait... 28 divided by six. Bugger! Good job we did a good job drawing up wards containing a whole number of discrete communities that can be split and paired...... Unfortunately it's not even as simple as 28 divided by 6. A central-style seat can probably only handle 4 wards compared to its current 5 (eg City, Walkley, Broomhill, Nether Edge together makes 70,453). Which means we've got to do 24 divided by 5. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 5, 2021 12:23:07 GMT
Yes looks like any chance of persuading the BCE to ignore the “regions” is hopeless. So no chance of linking Cleveland with North Yorkshire, or Milton Keynes with Northamptonshire, or north Lincolnshire with south Lincolnshire, all of which would be sensible. But, do (N/n)orth Lincolnshire and Cleveland come to a whole number of seats so they can be sort-of grouped off with their neighbour? The entitlements are "Greater Lincolnshire" = 10.81 rest of East Midlands = 39.91 rest of Yorkshire & Humber = 50.76 The problem is all three areas round up and then you end up with one seat too many. So unless you try and round down rump Yorkshire to 50 seats, I'm not sure a cross-regional seat here really helps. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 5, 2021 12:26:51 GMT
So that gives Monmouthshire (1), Torfaen (1), BG+Caerphilly+Newport (4.03→4), MT+RCT (2.99→3), Carmarthenshire (2), Ceredigion+Pembrokeshire (2.06→2), and everything else (17.95→18). Can you not break down the 'everything else'?
Cardiff + Vale + Bridgend + NPT + Swansea = 10.17 = 10 Flint + Wrexham = 2.93 = 3 Denbigh = 1.01 = 1
That leaves Conwy + Gwynedd + Powys = 3.84 = 4. This would normally be too tight, since the seats would average out at 0.96. But given the exceptionally small wards in this area it might just be possible.
Alternatively, maybe bolster this combination by 'borrowing' the Swansea Valley wards that currently sit rather awkwardly in NPT. This would even up the numbers and leave you with a sprawling 'everything else' with 14.01 = 14.
Edited to add: Sorry, this crossed with Neath West's edit of his post.
10.17 should be perfectly feasible for the 'Rest of Glamorgan' grouping, but is 3.84 really out of the question for Conwy-Gwynedd-Powys?
Conwy+Gwynedd+Montgomeryshire (0.67) = 3.09 (3) is quite nice and gets the split in a sensible place in both Powys and Gwynedd (the Meirionnydd/Dwyfor boundary works on the numbers). It then just turns into drawing some sort of line across Conwy to bring Dwyfor and Arfon up to size (all of the former Aberconwy district apart from Conwy town and Llansanffraid?). Swansea being so close to a half number makes things awkward. I'm having a play with this to see if I can come up with something reasonably non-ugly. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 5, 2021 12:29:30 GMT
But, do (N/n)orth Lincolnshire and Cleveland come to a whole number of seats so they can be sort-of grouped off with their neighbour? I haven’t looked at the latest data yet. They did on the December 2019 data. Unfortunately North/North East Lincolnshire cannot stand on their own in redrawing terms, even when paired together. Either the whole of the Isle of Axholme, or part thereof, will have to go into one of the East Riding of Yorkshire constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 5, 2021 12:36:48 GMT
I haven’t looked at the latest data yet. They did on the December 2019 data. Unfortunately North/North East Lincolnshire cannot stand on their own in redrawing terms, even when paired together. Either the whole of the Isle of Axholme, or part thereof, will have to go into one of the East Riding of Yorkshire constituencies. That's not the point I'm making. The point is that if you add them to south Lincolnshire it may approach a round number. I think it is widely agreed here that Lincolnshire would best be treated as a whole, and "south Humberside" be removed from Yorkshire. More widely there is absolutely no reason at all for BCE to use regions. They can simply group counties and unitaries as convenient. The intermediate regions are redundant. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jan 5, 2021 12:45:19 GMT
Woo Hoo! Wait... 28 divided by six. Bugger! Good job we did a good job drawing up wards containing a whole number of discrete communities that can be split and paired...... Unfortunately it's not even as simple as 28 divided by 6. A central-style seat can probably only handle 4 wards compared to its current 5 (eg City, Walkley, Broomhill, Nether Edge together makes 70,453). Which means we've got to do 24 divided by 5. I don't think Sheffield actually has enough for 6 seats; I make 5.61 quotas. I'd like to suggest that each region gets its own thread again; otherwise this thread is going to get very unwieldy. |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Jan 5, 2021 12:55:46 GMT
I would suggest putting Cardiff and Merthyr in the Newport group and then moving RCT to the big group. While Caerphilly borough would be split 4 ways, this avoids the previously unpopular Merthyr and Aberdare pairing. It would also allow for more options in Neath and Bridgend boroughs.
Also while Ceredigion and Pembroke can stand alone I wonder whether it would be worth adding to the Conwy group to avoid having to cross the Powys-Neath border
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,780
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 12:55:56 GMT
Using the Trent as a boundary, South Humberside comes to 222,956 -> 3.04 seats -> 3 seats.
Redcar/etc + Middlesbrough comes to 201,094 -> 2.74
Adding the rest of Yorkshire Teesside comes to 243,924 -> 3.32
You could probably get a decent 3 seats from most of Yorkshire Teesside.
|
|
ian48
Non-Aligned
Posts: 58
|
Post by ian48 on Jan 5, 2021 12:57:15 GMT
Can you not break down the 'everything else'? Cardiff + Vale + Bridgend + NPT + Swansea = 10.17 = 10 Flint + Wrexham = 2.93 = 3 Denbigh = 1.01 = 1 That leaves Conwy + Gwynedd + Powys = 3.84 = 4. This would normally be too tight, since the seats would average out at 0.96. But given the exceptionally small wards in this area it might just be possible.
Alternatively, maybe bolster this combination by 'borrowing' the Swansea Valley wards that currently sit rather awkwardly in NPT. This would even up the numbers and leave you with a sprawling 'everything else' with 14.01 = 14. Edited to add: Sorry, this crossed with Neath West's edit of his post. 10.17 should be perfectly feasible for the 'Rest of Glamorgan' grouping, but is 3.84 really out of the question for Conwy-Gwynedd-Powys?
Conwy+Gwynedd+Montgomeryshire (0.67) = 3.09 (3) is quite nice and gets the split in a sensible place in both Powys and Gwynedd (the Meirionnydd/Dwyfor boundary works on the numbers). It then just turns into drawing some sort of line across Conwy to bring Dwyfor and Arfon up to size (all of the former Aberconwy district apart from Conwy town and Llansanffraid?). Swansea being so close to a half number makes things awkward. I'm having a play with this to see if I can come up with something reasonably non-ugly. Trying to work out the seats you're thinking of in Powys/Gwynedd/Conwy. Where would the main towns or districts be in that one? A seat of Caernarfon/Bangor/Dwyfor? Conwy/Llandudno/Colwyn Bay? Then everything else? Just trying to picture it from what you have said there. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 5, 2021 12:57:56 GMT
I'd like to suggest that each region gets its own thread again; otherwise this thread is going to get very unwieldy. Agreed. But this is the right place for me to have a moan about using the regions...... |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 5, 2021 12:59:25 GMT
Unfortunately North/North East Lincolnshire cannot stand on their own in redrawing terms, even when paired together. Either the whole of the Isle of Axholme, or part thereof, will have to go into one of the East Riding of Yorkshire constituencies. That's not the point I'm making. The point is that if you add them to south Lincolnshire it may approach a round number. I think it is widely agreed here that Lincolnshire would best be treated as a whole, and "south Humberside" be removed from Yorkshire. More widely there is absolutely no reason at all for BCE to use regions. They can simply group counties and unitaries as convenient. The intermediate regions are redundant. John, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
If you're saying that the legislation should be amended to drop the reference to regions, then I can see a case for that (although I'm still not completely persuaded because the regions help ensure that we get the right number of seats in each part of England and don't end up with, say, larger-than-average seats all over the north and smaller-than-average across the south (or vice versa)).
But as matters stand, the regions are set out in detail in the legislation. Are you proposing that the BCE should use its discretion to ignore them? If so, I disagree: the fact that the regions are specified in statute is a very strong Parliamentary hint to the BCE that they should be used, and I think the BCE would be ill advised to ignore that (although I accept that it would technically be within its rights ).
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 5, 2021 13:00:21 GMT
I found it-it turns out you must enable cookies. Looking at the March 2020 data, the first thing I noticed was that it will no longer be necessary to have a Devon/Dorset cross-county constituency. Other good points include (inter alia): Brighton & Hove being entitled to 3 constituencies without having to add any wards from Lewes, Peterborough being able to have two constituencies to itself (North East and South West), Oxfordshire no longer having to be paired with Berkshire, Sheffield being able to have six constituencies to itself. Bad points include (inter alia): Buckinghamshire will realistically have to be paired with another county since Milton Keynes cannot stand on its own, Lambeth now having too many electors for three whole constituencies (however Inner London authorities notoriously have problems with keeping electoral registers accurate), and the redrawing of Merseyside's constituencies will be a real mess. This is wrong. The UA has an electorate of 124k, so it's about 15k short of mathematically being able to stand alone. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 5, 2021 13:05:08 GMT
That's not the point I'm making. The point is that if you add them to south Lincolnshire it may approach a round number. I think it is widely agreed here that Lincolnshire would best be treated as a whole, and "south Humberside" be removed from Yorkshire. More widely there is absolutely no reason at all for BCE to use regions. They can simply group counties and unitaries as convenient. The intermediate regions are redundant. John, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
If you're saying that the legislation should be amended to drop the reference to regions, then I can see a case for that (although I'm still not completely persuaded because the regions help ensure that we get the right number of seats in each part of England and don't end up with, say, larger-than-average seats all over the north and smaller-than-average across the south (or vice versa)).
But as matters stand, the regions are set out in detail in the legislation. Are you proposing that the BCE should use its discretion to ignore them? If so, I disagree: the fact that the regions are specified in statute is a very strong Parliamentary hint to the BCE that they should be used, and I think the BCE would be ill advised to ignore that (although I accept that it would technically be within its rights ).
I thought the reference to the regions had been removed, and the regions have generally no longer a statutory basis. However if they are in the legislation, then yes I agree with you that they will have to be used. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 5, 2021 13:06:25 GMT
I found it-it turns out you must enable cookies. Looking at the March 2020 data, the first thing I noticed was that it will no longer be necessary to have a Devon/Dorset cross-county constituency. Other good points include (inter alia): Brighton & Hove being entitled to 3 constituencies without having to add any wards from Lewes, Peterborough being able to have two constituencies to itself (North East and South West), Oxfordshire no longer having to be paired with Berkshire, Sheffield being able to have six constituencies to itself. Bad points include (inter alia): Buckinghamshire will realistically have to be paired with another county since Milton Keynes cannot stand on its own, Lambeth now having too many electors for three whole constituencies (however Inner London authorities notoriously have problems with keeping electoral registers accurate), and the redrawing of Merseyside's constituencies will be a real mess. are you looking at the local electorates in Table 1 ? You need to use the other tables to get the parliamentary electorates. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,780
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 13:08:53 GMT
Using the Trent as a boundary, South Humberside comes to 222,956 -> 3.04 seats -> 3 seats. Redcar/etc + Middlesbrough comes to 201,094 -> 2.74 Adding the rest of Yorkshire Teesside comes to 243,924 -> 3.32 You could probably get a decent 3 seats from most of Yorkshire Teesside. adding Ingleby W + E gets to 218,406 -> 2.98 -> 3 seats adding Mandale/Village/Stainsby gets to 218,155 -> 2.97 -> 3 seats either looks decent enough I would have liked to get Yarm into a Yorkshire-in-Teesside seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 5, 2021 13:22:34 GMT
Using the Trent as a boundary, South Humberside comes to 222,956 -> 3.04 seats -> 3 seats. Because of course the logical boundary between North Humberside and South Humberside is the river Trent... |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,780
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 13:28:06 GMT
Using the Trent as a boundary, South Humberside comes to 222,956 -> 3.04 seats -> 3 seats. Because of course the logical boundary between North Humberside and South Humberside is the river Trent... The logical boundary between Lincolnshire and Yorkshire is the river Trent. ...and the Humber. |
|
