2023 Review - Yorkshire and the Humber

[mattb]

Feb 7, 2021 21:17:02 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I suppose it would not be acceptable to have a seat combining parts of East Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire (even though all parts of it are truly part of the West Riding)? It's a shame if not as it enables quite a good solution to the problems presented by the large ward sizes in the East Riding and the connected problems with Hull. I've shamelessly borrowed East Anglian Lefty 's plan for using Pontefract and Knottingley as the part of West Yorkshire used to cross the border. I think somebody else suggested the Bridlington/Filey link as well

My plan (on p3) has a Wetherby seat that also includes Tadcaster and Boroughbridge. I also have a Howdenshire and a Goole & Selby (?Barkston Ash) using the Ouse as the boundary between them. (and my Bridlington includes Filey).

[Pete Whitehead]

That's a good plan in that area but I don't care much for the rest of your West Yorkshire. My instinct was that clearly Wetherby would be the most logical place to effect a crossing between North and West Yorkshire as you have done there, but in practice the Pontefract plan seems to work much better

[greenhert]

Feb 7, 2021 21:48:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

That's a good plan in that area but I don't care much for the rest of your West Yorkshire. My instinct was that clearly Wetherby would be the most logical place to effect a crossing between North and West Yorkshire as you have done there, but in practice the Pontefract plan seems to work much better

It also causes significant problems with redrawing constituencies in West Yorkshire. Here is what I came up with in my "Wetherby plan":

1. Halifax (71,726). Unchanged. This seat should be left alone by the Boundary Commission.
2. Sowerby & Brighouse (70,435). Succeeds Calder Valley. Loses Rastrick ward.
3. Huddersfield South East & Rastrick (73,783). Succeeds Huddersfield. Loses Greenhead ward, gains Crosland Moor & Netherton ward in Kirklees and Rastrick ward in Calderdale.
4. Huddersfield North West (70,015). Succeeds Colne Valley in practice. Gains Greenhead ward, loses Crosland Moor & Netherton and Holme Valley South wards.
5. Kirkburton (70,560). Succeeds Dewsbury in practice despite not containing any part of Dewsbury itself. Gains Holme Valley South ward in Kirklees and Wakefield Rural ward in Wakefield, loses all three Dewsbury wards.
6. Dewsbury & Ossett (approx. 70,000). New seat. Contains all three Dewsbury wards and both Ossett wards (i.e. Ossett and Horbury & South Ossett), and part of Batley East ward.
7. Batley & Spen (approx. 75,300). Loses part of Batley East ward.
8. Wakefield (approx. 70,000). Loses both Ossett wards, gains both Outwood wards, Wakefield South ward, and part of Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward.
9. Pontefract & Castleford (72,751). Succeeds Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford. Simply loses Normanton ward.
10. Hemsworth (approx. 73,200). Loses Wakefield South ward and part of Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward, gains Normanton ward.
11. Morley & Rothwell (69,776). Succeeds Morley & Outwood. Loses both Outwood wards, gains Rothwell ward.
12. Leeds South (approx. 75,200). Succeeds Leeds Central. Loses part of Beeston & Holbeck ward and otherwise realigned to new ward boundaries (notably loses the Hyde Park part of Headingley & Hyde Park).
13. Leeds West (approx. 74,900). Gains part of Beeston & Holbeck ward.
14. Pudsey (74,605). Readjusted for new ward boundaries. See my point about Halifax.
15. Leeds North West (76,005). Readjusted for new ward boundaries (adds Hyde Park).
16. Leeds North East (70,976). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.
17. Leeds East (approx. 76,200). Gains half of Garforth & Swillington ward.
18. Selby (approx. 76,400). Succeeds Selby & Ainsty. Contains lower half of Selby district including Selby itself, part of Garforth & Swillington ward, and also Kippax & Methley ward within Leeds.
19. Wetherby (75,249). Succeeds Elmet & Rothwell in practice despite the two Elmet & Rothwell wards making up only 42% of this seat. Contains the Harewood and Wetherby wards of Leeds, the upper half of the Selby district, the Harrogate wards of Bishop Monkton & Newby, Boroughbridge, Marston Moor, Ouseburn, and Spofforth with Lower Wharfedale, and the Hambleton wards of Easingwold and Huby.
20. Harrogate & Knaresborough (75,800). Loses Boroughbridge ward.
21. Skipton & Ripon (76,758). Loses Bishop Monkton & Newby ward.
22. Richmond (Yorks) (75,311). Loses Great Ayton and Tanfield wards.
23. Thirsk & Malton (75,140). Loses the Filey and Hunmanby wards of Scarborough and the Easingwold and Huby wards of Hambleton, and gains the Great Ayton and Tanfield wards of Hambleton and the Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards of Scarborough.
24. Scarborough & Whitby (75,486). Loses Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards, gains Filey and Hunmanby wards. This change was necessary for quota purposes (in my previous plan it remained unchanged).
25. York Central (74,854). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.
26. York Outer (72,720). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 7, 2021 22:33:41 GMT greenhert said:

Feb 7, 2021 21:48:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

That's a good plan in that area but I don't care much for the rest of your West Yorkshire. My instinct was that clearly Wetherby would be the most logical place to effect a crossing between North and West Yorkshire as you have done there, but in practice the Pontefract plan seems to work much better

It also causes significant problems with redrawing constituencies in West Yorkshire. Here is what I came up with in my "Wetherby plan":

1. Halifax (71,726). Unchanged. This seat should be left alone by the Boundary Commission.
2. Sowerby & Brighouse (70,435). Succeeds Calder Valley. Loses Rastrick ward.
3. Huddersfield South East & Rastrick (73,783). Succeeds Huddersfield. Loses Greenhead ward, gains Crosland Moor & Netherton ward in Kirklees and Rastrick ward in Calderdale.
4. Huddersfield North West (70,015). Succeeds Colne Valley in practice. Gains Greenhead ward, loses Crosland Moor & Netherton and Holme Valley South wards.
5. Kirkburton (70,560). Succeeds Dewsbury in practice despite not containing any part of Dewsbury itself. Gains Holme Valley South ward in Kirklees and Wakefield Rural ward in Wakefield, loses all three Dewsbury wards.
6. Dewsbury & Ossett (approx. 70,000). New seat. Contains all three Dewsbury wards and both Ossett wards (i.e. Ossett and Horbury & South Ossett), and part of Batley East ward.
7. Batley & Spen (approx. 75,300). Loses part of Batley East ward.
8. Wakefield (approx. 70,000). Loses both Ossett wards, gains both Outwood wards, Wakefield South ward, and part of Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward.
9. Pontefract & Castleford (72,751). Succeeds Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford. Simply loses Normanton ward.
10. Hemsworth (approx. 73,200). Loses Wakefield South ward and part of Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward, gains Normanton ward.
11. Morley & Rothwell (69,776). Succeeds Morley & Outwood. Loses both Outwood wards, gains Rothwell ward.
12. Leeds South (approx. 75,200). Succeeds Leeds Central. Loses part of Beeston & Holbeck ward and otherwise realigned to new ward boundaries (notably loses the Hyde Park part of Headingley & Hyde Park).
13. Leeds West (approx. 74,900). Gains part of Beeston & Holbeck ward.
14. Pudsey (74,605). Readjusted for new ward boundaries. See my point about Halifax.
15. Leeds North West (76,005). Readjusted for new ward boundaries (adds Hyde Park).
16. Leeds North East (70,976). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.
17. Leeds East (approx. 76,200). Gains half of Garforth & Swillington ward.
18. Selby (approx. 76,400). Succeeds Selby & Ainsty. Contains lower half of Selby district including Selby itself, part of Garforth & Swillington ward, and also Kippax & Methley ward within Leeds.
19. Wetherby (75,249). Succeeds Elmet & Rothwell in practice despite the two Elmet & Rothwell wards making up only 42% of this seat. Contains the Harewood and Wetherby wards of Leeds, the upper half of the Selby district, the Harrogate wards of Bishop Monkton & Newby, Boroughbridge, Marston Moor, Ouseburn, and Spofforth with Lower Wharfedale, and the Hambleton wards of Easingwold and Huby.
20. Harrogate & Knaresborough (75,800). Loses Boroughbridge ward.
21. Skipton & Ripon (76,758). Loses Bishop Monkton & Newby ward.
22. Richmond (Yorks) (75,311). Loses Great Ayton and Tanfield wards.
23. Thirsk & Malton (75,140). Loses the Filey and Hunmanby wards of Scarborough and the Easingwold and Huby wards of Hambleton, and gains the Great Ayton and Tanfield wards of Hambleton and the Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards of Scarborough.
24. Scarborough & Whitby (75,486). Loses Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards, gains Filey and Hunmanby wards. This change was necessary for quota purposes (in my previous plan it remained unchanged).
25. York Central (74,854). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.
26. York Outer (72,720). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.

I think you've caused an awful lot more of a mess in West Yorkshire with that plan (though I do wish you would publish maps of your plans because it's a lot more effort to try and work out what you've done from your descriptions). In particular your plans around Kirklees sound dreadful. Since you are splitting wards with abandon, then why not just split a Calderdale ward to keep two seats wholly within that borough? Kirklees works out a lot better that way. Also splitting Garforth & Swillington in half in practice means splitting Garforth. You can find the Polling district figures on the LGBCE website

[Andrew_S]

Just had to look Ainsty up on Wikipedia to remind myself what it refers to. Its a historical name for the area to the west of York.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 7, 2021 22:33:41 GMT greenhert said:

23. Thirsk & Malton (75,140). Loses the Filey and Hunmanby wards of Scarborough and the Easingwold and Huby wards of Hambleton, and gains the Great Ayton and Tanfield wards of Hambleton and the Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards of Scarborough.
24. Scarborough & Whitby (75,486). Loses Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards, gains Filey and Hunmanby wards. This change was necessary for quota purposes (in my previous plan it remained unchanged).

The problem with that is the whole Esk Valley is essentially a single unit. It is more disconnected with the areas to the south than raw distance implies, and it tightly connected to the rest of the Esk Valley. It's vast bleak moorland. The high ground of the moors is equivalent to a similar sized estuary.

There is more flexibility at the southern end of Scarborough borough/Scarborough & Whitby constituency for fiddling with boundaries. Eg, the Forge Valley can be pushed or pulled adding/removing towards/awayfrom Pickering; Filey/Hunmanby can be advanced into.

[mattb]

Feb 7, 2021 21:48:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

That's a good plan in that area but I don't care much for the rest of your West Yorkshire. My instinct was that clearly Wetherby would be the most logical place to effect a crossing between North and West Yorkshire as you have done there, but in practice the Pontefract plan seems to work much better

I had been meaning to revisit W.Yorks because as you say my plan upthread has multiple defects. But while good, EAL's plan has I think four split wards which feels like a lot ... so here's another attempt with just a single split ward and just a single seat crossing the W.Yorks boundary. (everything outside W.Yorks unchanged from my previous). Still several obvious compromises but six extra seats now unchanged (apart from ward realignments). It may be that multiple split wards are the more likely outcome.

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 8, 2021 16:54:28 GMT mattb said:

Feb 7, 2021 21:48:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

That's a good plan in that area but I don't care much for the rest of your West Yorkshire. My instinct was that clearly Wetherby would be the most logical place to effect a crossing between North and West Yorkshire as you have done there, but in practice the Pontefract plan seems to work much better

I had been meaning to revisit W.Yorks because as you say my plan upthread has multiple defects. But while good, EAL's plan has I think three split wards which feels like a lot ... so here's another attempt with just a single ward split and just a single seat crossing the W.Yorks boundary. (everything outside W.Yorks unchanged from my previous). Still several obvious compromises but six extra seats now unchanged (apart from ward realignments). It may be that multiple split wards are the more likely outcome.

But if I remember right, EAL's plan had only one borough crossing in all of Bradford/Calderdale/Kirklees/Leeds - Bradford can keep five whole seats without any need to split wards, Calderdale can keep it's two with one. There was a single borough crossing between Kirklees and Leeds. Yours has one between Bradford and Calderdale, two between Calderdale and Kirklees and two between Kirklees and Leeds. It's hard to believe that splitting three wards is worse than creating that many cross borough seats, treating ward boundaries with more sanctity than borough boundaries. And most of those seats in Kirklees and Calderdale make little sense in terms of natural communities

[mattb]

Feb 8, 2021 17:16:13 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Feb 8, 2021 16:54:28 GMT mattb said:

I had been meaning to revisit W.Yorks because as you say my plan upthread has multiple defects. But while good, EAL's plan has I think three split wards which feels like a lot ... so here's another attempt with just a single ward split and just a single seat crossing the W.Yorks boundary. (everything outside W.Yorks unchanged from my previous). Still several obvious compromises but six extra seats now unchanged (apart from ward realignments). It may be that multiple split wards are the more likely outcome.

But if I remember right, EAL's plan had only one borough crossing in all of Bradford/Calderdale/Kirklees/Leeds - Bradford can keep five whole seats without any need to split wards, Calderdale can keep it's two with one. There was a single borough crossing between Kirklees and Leeds. Yours has one between Bradford and Calderdale, two between Calderdale and Kirklees and two between Kirklees and Leeds. It's hard to believe that splitting three wards is worse than creating that many cross borough seats, treating ward boundaries with more sanctity than borough boundaries. And most of those seats in Kirklees and Calderdale make little sense in terms of natural communities

Yes indeed - as I said, it may be that multiple ward splits is the more likely outcome.

[islington]

The new plan posted by mattb above incorporates the stunning revelation that it's possible for Bradford to absorb a Calderdale ward.

Inspired thereby, I came up with this:

Yes, it's a new non-split plan.

I'm not saying it's my preference because, as Pete Whitehead is probably about to point out, seats rampage across LA boundaries all over the place: the S Yorks boundary is crossed no fewer than five times, compared with once in my preferred plan posted a long way upthread somewhere. Also, the Halifax & Cleckheaton seat is really messy; and yes, I know there's no road directly linking Stanley and Normanton so you'll just have to swim the Calder, it's invigorating at this time of year. (Actually this problem can be resolved by swapping Featherstone and Altofts but then the boundary goes very close to Castleford town centre.)

But I'm posting the plan anyway because for all its faults, it has some very positive features. Notably, it's the only non-split plan i've seen that avoids splitting Ossett, Dewsbury, Outwood, and even (drumroll please) Wakefield. The Penistone & Holme Valley seat (whatever you want to call it), despite straddling the SY/WY boundary, makes more sense than a lot of plans in this area, and I also like the award of two seats to Huddersfield instead of the usual approach of slicing great chunks out of the town.

Anyway, enjoy. 

Edited to add: I'm sure everyone's spotted my deliberate error: the Hemsworth seat above is slightly oversize. Swap Cudworth and St Helens and all is well. Sorry for the mistake.

[greenhert]

Feb 7, 2021 22:50:55 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Feb 7, 2021 22:33:41 GMT greenhert said:

It also causes significant problems with redrawing constituencies in West Yorkshire. Here is what I came up with in my "Wetherby plan":

1. Halifax (71,726). Unchanged. This seat should be left alone by the Boundary Commission.
2. Sowerby & Brighouse (70,435). Succeeds Calder Valley. Loses Rastrick ward.
3. Huddersfield South East & Rastrick (73,783). Succeeds Huddersfield. Loses Greenhead ward, gains Crosland Moor & Netherton ward in Kirklees and Rastrick ward in Calderdale.
4. Huddersfield North West (70,015). Succeeds Colne Valley in practice. Gains Greenhead ward, loses Crosland Moor & Netherton and Holme Valley South wards.
5. Kirkburton (70,560). Succeeds Dewsbury in practice despite not containing any part of Dewsbury itself. Gains Holme Valley South ward in Kirklees and Wakefield Rural ward in Wakefield, loses all three Dewsbury wards.
6. Dewsbury & Ossett (approx. 70,000). New seat. Contains all three Dewsbury wards and both Ossett wards (i.e. Ossett and Horbury & South Ossett), and part of Batley East ward.
7. Batley & Spen (approx. 75,300). Loses part of Batley East ward.
8. Wakefield (approx. 70,000). Loses both Ossett wards, gains both Outwood wards, Wakefield South ward, and part of Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward.
9. Pontefract & Castleford (72,751). Succeeds Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford. Simply loses Normanton ward.
10. Hemsworth (approx. 73,200). Loses Wakefield South ward and part of Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward, gains Normanton ward.
11. Morley & Rothwell (69,776). Succeeds Morley & Outwood. Loses both Outwood wards, gains Rothwell ward.
12. Leeds South (approx. 75,200). Succeeds Leeds Central. Loses part of Beeston & Holbeck ward and otherwise realigned to new ward boundaries (notably loses the Hyde Park part of Headingley & Hyde Park).
13. Leeds West (approx. 74,900). Gains part of Beeston & Holbeck ward.
14. Pudsey (74,605). Readjusted for new ward boundaries. See my point about Halifax.
15. Leeds North West (76,005). Readjusted for new ward boundaries (adds Hyde Park).
16. Leeds North East (70,976). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.
17. Leeds East (approx. 76,200). Gains half of Garforth & Swillington ward.
18. Selby (approx. 76,400). Succeeds Selby & Ainsty. Contains lower half of Selby district including Selby itself, part of Garforth & Swillington ward, and also Kippax & Methley ward within Leeds.
19. Wetherby (75,249). Succeeds Elmet & Rothwell in practice despite the two Elmet & Rothwell wards making up only 42% of this seat. Contains the Harewood and Wetherby wards of Leeds, the upper half of the Selby district, the Harrogate wards of Bishop Monkton & Newby, Boroughbridge, Marston Moor, Ouseburn, and Spofforth with Lower Wharfedale, and the Hambleton wards of Easingwold and Huby.
20. Harrogate & Knaresborough (75,800). Loses Boroughbridge ward.
21. Skipton & Ripon (76,758). Loses Bishop Monkton & Newby ward.
22. Richmond (Yorks) (75,311). Loses Great Ayton and Tanfield wards.
23. Thirsk & Malton (75,140). Loses the Filey and Hunmanby wards of Scarborough and the Easingwold and Huby wards of Hambleton, and gains the Great Ayton and Tanfield wards of Hambleton and the Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards of Scarborough.
24. Scarborough & Whitby (75,486). Loses Danby & Mulgrave and Esk Valley wards, gains Filey and Hunmanby wards. This change was necessary for quota purposes (in my previous plan it remained unchanged).
25. York Central (74,854). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.
26. York Outer (72,720). Readjusted for new ward boundaries.

I think you've caused an awful lot more of a mess in West Yorkshire with that plan (though I do wish you would publish maps of your plans because it's a lot more effort to try and work out what you've done from your descriptions). In particular your plans around Kirklees sound dreadful. Since you are splitting wards with abandon, then why not just split a Calderdale ward to keep two seats wholly within that borough? Kirklees works out a lot better that way. Also splitting Garforth & Swillington in half in practice means splitting Garforth. You can find the Polling district figures on the LGBCE website

You can find maps of my plan here:


ibb.co/6WjWTpg

ibb.co/nf913nY

ibb.co/ZBjVZXL

ibb.co/CBMN81m

[Pete Whitehead]

Thanks. Your map of the HUddersfield area doesn't look at all as bad as it sounded
Cross Gates & Whinmoor as a detached part of Leeds NW is novel..

[greenhert]

Feb 8, 2021 21:54:06 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Thanks. Your map of the HUddersfield area doesn't look at all as bad as it sounded
Cross Gates & Whinmoor as a detached part of Leeds NW is novel..

That was an error that I edited out of the map (but not that image) before I published it.

[John Chanin]

This is the region I have left until last, basically because it is impossible.  I make therefore no claims for this, as I have simply made a random split of wards where necessary rather than doing it scientifically, or producing implausible cross borough seats that avoid splits.  I don't doubt others have made a more serious stab.  

South Humberside I have simply used the same arrangement as the zombie review.  Axholme is taken into Doncaster and then you can get 6 seats out of north Humberside.  There aren't a lot of choices because of ward sizes.  So we have Bridlington & Holderness, with SW taken into Hull East, Beverley with the NW of the district, and Goole & Howden .  Hull West now needs 3 of the suburban wards.  

Doncaster, Rotherham, and Axholme works for 6 seats, though it requires a bit of fiddling around to get them to add up. Doncaster North & Central are recognizably similar to now, with the NE wards going into a Doncaster East & Axholme seat, and Conisbrough and Tickhill going into Rotherham, where they are added to most of the current Rother Valley.  Rotherham Central picks up the rest of it, and loses northern wards to make a Rotherham North seat wholly in the borough. 

For Sheffield I have simply split Manor Park rather than construct cross-borough seats with Rotherham.  The rest of the Sheffield seats are then as now, except I have swapped Birley and Richmond.  Penistone & Stocksbridge is also unaltered.  You can then fiddle the rest of Barnsley to get two seats just under maximum. 

This actually isn't too bad.  

[John Chanin]

West and North Yorkshire is another issue entirely.  

Wakefield is as now, just losing Normanton to join the Outwood seats in Leeds.  Bradford does 5 seats on its own (needs a little rearrangement).  I haven't even looked at cross-borough seats.  Calderdale I have simply excised Rastrick to give two 8 ward seats. 

Kirklees I note that there are no 6 ward combinations, and only 1 5 ward combination within quota. The latter is Colne Valley (as now without Crosland Moor).  The latter ward goes into Huddersfield, which loses Almondbury in exchange, and takes Rastrick to bring it into quota.  That leaves you 13 wards.  Basically a ward split is required, and the 2 Batley wards go into Leeds.  I've kept a Dewsbury seat down the east of the borough, but it has to take Almondbury, so the split ward can only be Dewsbury West.  Don't know what you'd call the NW seat - Spenborough?  Cleckheaton? 

Leeds I have essentially given up on.  I note that there are 4 possible 4 ward combinations, but they are all small (except for whatever seat includes Headingly).  Adding Batley to Morley is too small, and adding any other ward is too big, so you have to split either Middleton or Farnley (I have nominally done the latter).  Outwood and Normanton join Rothwell and Ardsley.  I have just 3 4-ward combinations as I wanted to drop just 3 wards into North Yorkshire.  These are Pudsey - I have tidied the boundary by taking Bramley in, and moving Guiseley to NW.  NW also loses Weetwood and Headingley and gains Alwoodley.  Because Headingley is so enormous it requires 3 smaller wards to link with (thus Weetwood), plus Kirkstall & Armley  (a new Leeds West).  The other half of Farnley goes into an otherwise unchanged Leeds Central.  I then have NE and E seats with a nominal split of Burmantofts.  

Kippax goes into Selby.  The 2 spare Selby wards (Tadcaster) link with Wetherby, Harewood and Ripon.  Harrogate is now entirely urban, losing Boroughbridge and Claro into the aforementioned seat.  Skipton takes the whole of Craven District, plus spare wards from the west side of Harrogate, plus the dales wards of Richmondshire.  Richmond itself links with Northallerton and Thirsk, as the present Thirsk and Malton seat is too big, and Thirsk is at its northern edge.  Scarborough is unchanged.  

Now I will see what weird and wonderful solutions others have come up with for Kirklees and Leeds. 

[YL]

Feb 9, 2021 13:54:58 GMT John Chanin said:

Doncaster, Rotherham, and Axholme works for 6 seats, though it requires a bit of fiddling around to get them to add up. Doncaster North & Central are recognizably similar to now, with the NE wards going into a Doncaster East & Axholme seat, and Conisbrough and Tickhill going into Rotherham, where they are added to most of the current Rother Valley.  Rotherham Central picks up the rest of it, and loses northern wards to make a Rotherham North seat wholly in the borough. 

Which Rotherham wards do you have in your cross-border Rotherham/Doncaster seat? Putting Tickhill and Conisbrough in with the Maltby/Wickersley area is an idea I've been playing with.

[islington]

Feb 9, 2021 14:19:57 GMT John Chanin said:

West and North Yorkshire is another issue entirely.  

Wakefield is as now, just losing Normanton to join the Outwood seats in Leeds.  Bradford does 5 seats on its own (needs a little rearrangement).  I haven't even looked at cross-borough seats.  Calderdale I have simply excised Rastrick to give two 8 ward seats. 

Kirklees I note that there are no 6 ward combinations, and only 1 5 ward combination within quota. The latter is Colne Valley (as now without Crosland Moor).  The latter ward goes into Huddersfield, which loses Almondbury in exchange, and takes Rastrick to bring it into quota.  That leaves you 13 wards.  Basically a ward split is required, and the 2 Batley wards go into Leeds.  I've kept a Dewsbury seat down the east of the borough, but it has to take Almondbury, so the split ward can only be Dewsbury West.  Don't know what you'd call the NW seat - Spenborough?  Cleckheaton? 

Leeds I have essentially given up on.  I note that there are 4 possible 4 ward combinations, but they are all small (except for whatever seat includes Headingly).  Adding Batley to Morley is too small, and adding any other ward is too big, so you have to split either Middleton or Farnley (I have nominally done the latter).  Outwood and Normanton join Rothwell and Ardsley.  I have just 3 4-ward combinations as I wanted to drop just 3 wards into North Yorkshire.  These are Pudsey - I have tidied the boundary by taking Bramley in, and moving Guiseley to NW.  NW also loses Weetwood and Headingley and gains Alwoodley.  Because Headingley is so enormous it requires 3 smaller wards to link with (thus Weetwood), plus Kirkstall & Armley  (a new Leeds West).  The other half of Farnley goes into an otherwise unchanged Leeds Central.  I then have NE and E seats with a nominal split of Burmantofts.  

Kippax goes into Selby.  The 2 spare Selby wards (Tadcaster) link with Wetherby, Harewood and Ripon.  Harrogate is now entirely urban, losing Boroughbridge and Claro into the aforementioned seat.  Skipton takes the whole of Craven District, plus spare wards from the west side of Harrogate, plus the dales wards of Richmondshire.  Richmond itself links with Northallerton and Thirsk, as the present Thirsk and Malton seat is too big, and Thirsk is at its northern edge.  Scarborough is unchanged.  

Now I will see what weird and wonderful solutions others have come up with for Kirklees and Leeds. 

Batley & Morley is a good combination (and of course such a seat was in existence for most of the 20th century). You can get it within range, without a ward split, by adding Heckmondwike (or theoretically Birstall, but that would make it impossible to draw a quorate Dewsbury (Dewsbury x 3 plus Mirfield and Liversedge, so that's a second 5-ward combination in Kirklees)). For Leeds, my preferred plan (posted 10 Jan, please note the afterthought) has four 4-ward combinations wholly within Leeds and I posted yesterday an alternative with five (but yesterday's plan is less preferred overall because it has so many more LA boundary-crossings). Neither plan involves a single ward split.

So my advice is not to give up. There are a lot more combinations than might appear at first sight. I acknowledge that there's plenty to criticize in both my plans and of course like any plan they contain seats that are less than ideal, but I'd argue that neither of them contains anything that could be described as a Lancaster-and-Fleetwood-style car crash.

[John Chanin]

Feb 9, 2021 15:30:04 GMT islington said:

Batley & Morley is a good combination (and of course such a seat was in existence for most of the 20th century). You can get it within range, without a ward split, by adding Heckmondwike (or theoretically Birstall, but that would make it impossible to draw a quorate Dewsbury (Dewsbury x 3 plus Mirfield and Liversedge, so that's a second 5-ward combination in Kirklees)). For Leeds, my preferred plan (posted 10 Jan, please note the afterthought) has four 4-ward combinations wholly within Leeds and I posted yesterday an alternative with five (but yesterday's plan is less preferred overall because it has so many more LA boundary-crossings). Neither plan involves a single ward split.

So my advice is not to give up. There are a lot more combinations than might appear at first sight. I acknowledge that there's plenty to criticize in both my plans and of course like any plan they contain seats that are less than ideal, but I'd argue that neither of them contains anything that could be described as a Lancaster-and-Fleetwood-style car crash.

Thanks for this.  I confess I spent a whole day banging my head on Leeds (after a couple of hours on Kirklees, admittedly while listening to the cricket) before giving up, and reviewing this thread shows there are several things I missed.  

[greenhert]

Feb 9, 2021 13:54:58 GMT John Chanin said:

This is the region I have left until last, basically because it is impossible.  I make therefore no claims for this, as I have simply made a random split of wards where necessary rather than doing it scientifically, or producing implausible cross borough seats that avoid splits.  I don't doubt others have made a more serious stab.  

South Humberside I have simply used the same arrangement as the zombie review.  Axholme is taken into Doncaster and then you can get 6 seats out of north Humberside.  There aren't a lot of choices because of ward sizes.  So we have Bridlington & Holderness, with SW taken into Hull East, Beverley with the NW of the district, and Goole & Howden .  Hull West now needs 3 of the suburban wards.  

Doncaster, Rotherham, and Axholme works for 6 seats, though it requires a bit of fiddling around to get them to add up. Doncaster North & Central are recognizably similar to now, with the NE wards going into a Doncaster East & Axholme seat, and Conisbrough and Tickhill going into Rotherham, where they are added to most of the current Rother Valley.  Rotherham Central picks up the rest of it, and loses northern wards to make a Rotherham North seat wholly in the borough. 

For Sheffield I have simply split Manor Park rather than construct cross-borough seats with Rotherham.  The rest of the Sheffield seats are then as now, except I have swapped Birley and Richmond.  Penistone & Stocksbridge is also unaltered.  You can then fiddle the rest of Barnsley to get two seats just under maximum. 

This actually isn't too bad.  

Bridlington & Holderness can simply be called Bridlington. The old constituency of Bridlington always contained the whole Holderness peninsula, pre-1983 and post-1983. 

The other two wards added to a redrawn Hull West & Hessle would naturally be Thanby and Willerby & Kirk Ella. Hull North can simply add Central ward, and Hull East taking in SW Holderness puts it exactly into quota. Goole & Howden contains little of the historic Howden constituency (which in your plan is primarily in your Beverley constituency) and a considerable part of the Haltemprice constituency, so Goole & Cottingham would be a better name.

Your East Yorkshire/Hull plan does however have no ward splits whatsoever (my plan did mainly because I was trying to minimise change to coherent rural East Yorkshire seats), so the BCE could end up replicating it.

[YL]

From the Leeds NW Almanac thread:

Feb 11, 2021 14:35:13 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Apr 22, 2020 7:47:13 GMT loderingo said:

I have always thought this constituency and neighbouring Pudsey have terrible boundaries. Surely it would make more sense to merge the 2 most NW wards of Leeds NW with the 2 N wards of Pudsey. The 2 S wards of Pudsey go with 2 from Leeds W and the 2 most SE wards of Leeds NW go with the other 2 wards of Leeds W. Presumably you still end up with 2 safe Lab and 1 marginal Con but much tidier boundaries.

Interestingly this arrangement would see all three of these seats in quota (where on the current arrangements Leeds West is under quota). It makes a good deal of sense actually but I'm sure our old friends minimum change and established arrangements would prevent that being entertained

At first it seems it doesn't help that much because if Leeds less the Morley area, which has 30 wards, is to be divided into 7 seats we only need three seats made up of four whole wards, with two wards being split to give the other four seats each containing four whole wards and part of one of the split wards. And three of the current seats are in quota, so we don't need any more.

However, it might allow a better arrangement in the east. In the plan I previously posted, I split Harewood ward, with a few villages being added to Leeds East, which doesn't seem the best arrangement. It might be a better fit if bits of Harewood could be added to Leeds NE instead, where they'd join the rest of Harewood parish and the also more peripheral Alwoodley. The other split ward would be Burmantofts & Richmond Hill, between Central and East; it looks like this ward can be split cleanly along the A64.

It might also help if you want to split fewer than two Leeds wards, but I don't think two is excessive given the sizes of the city and its wards.