|
Post by islington on May 17, 2021 14:16:30 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects. As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc. Well, quite, but the trouble is that one of these categories has to agree the legislation.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 17, 2021 15:10:41 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects. As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc. Minimum change is nice as a concept but not when it is clear that the map needs to be mostly redrawn to correct mistakes and accommodate an extra constituency in the county. Norfolk/Suffolk is a case in point.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 17, 2021 17:30:13 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects. As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc. Minimum change also often ends up with creeping messyness. Sheffield Attercliffe has through a series of "minumum changes" ended up almost entirely excluding Attercliffe and stretching all the way down the south-east of Sheffield. Similarly, the nonsense of adding Stannington to Hallam will be preserved because now that it's in, it's minimum change to keep it in.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
Member is Online
|
Post by ilerda on May 17, 2021 18:34:39 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects. As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc. Minimum change also often ends up with creeping messyness. Sheffield Attercliffe has through a series of "minumum changes" ended up almost entirely excluding Attercliffe and stretching all the way down the south-east of Sheffield. Similarly, the nonsense of adding Stannington to Hallam will be preserved because now that it's in, it's minimum change to keep it in. Absolutely. As I've often said on this forum, minimum change is only sensible if the current map is good. And in many places the map right now is far from good.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 18, 2021 8:47:52 GMT
Minimum change also often ends up with creeping messyness. Sheffield Attercliffe has through a series of "minumum changes" ended up almost entirely excluding Attercliffe and stretching all the way down the south-east of Sheffield. Similarly, the nonsense of adding Stannington to Hallam will be preserved because now that it's in, it's minimum change to keep it in. Absolutely. As I've often said on this forum, minimum change is only sensible if the current map is good. And in many places the map right now is far from good. I've commented further on this subject on the '2023 Review' thread.
The only thing I'd add here is that Rule 5 suggests that we have regard to "boundaries of existing constituencies". It doesn't go on to add "... but only if we like them."
And I'll put my hand up and acknowledge that I'd allowed myself to get into a frame of mind in which I was actively seeking to abolish or improve certain existing arrangements that I dislike, such as the division of Sale and Crosby, Lancaster & Fleetwood, &c. I'm now saying that this approach is entirely unsupported by Rule 5 and I've abandoned it in favour of trying to minimize disruption to the existing arrangement whether I like it or not.
So I'm keeping the current pattern in Sefton and Trafford. I'd even have kept Lancester & Fleetwood if I could (it is within range) but I'm pleased to find that it still bites the dust because of forced changes to neighbouring seats.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
Member is Online
|
Post by ilerda on May 18, 2021 8:56:53 GMT
Absolutely. As I've often said on this forum, minimum change is only sensible if the current map is good. And in many places the map right now is far from good. I've commented further on this subject on the '2023 Review' thread.
The only thing I'd add here is that Rule 5 suggests that we have regard to "boundaries of existing constituencies". It doesn't go on to add "... but only if we like them."
And I'll put my hand up and acknowledge that I'd allowed myself to get into a frame of mind in which I was actively seeking to abolish or improve certain existing arrangements that I dislike, such as the division of Sale and Crosby, Lancaster & Fleetwood, &c. I'm now saying that this approach is entirely unsupported by Rule 5 and I've abandoned it in favour of trying to minimize disruption to the existing arrangement whether I like it or not.
So I'm keeping the current pattern in Sefton and Trafford. I'd even have kept Lancester & Fleetwood if I could (it is within range) but I'm pleased to find that it still bites the dust because of forced changes to neighbouring seats.
Rule 5 also says we should have regard to community ties (or whatever the exact working is). But having regard only really requires us to acknowledge their existence. Anything beyond that is personal choice provided we can give some justification for not giving it more weight. And if having regard to existing constituencies is in conflict with having regard to reflecting community ties then I'm very much in favour of prioritising the latter.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 18, 2021 9:11:32 GMT
I've commented further on this subject on the '2023 Review' thread.
The only thing I'd add here is that Rule 5 suggests that we have regard to "boundaries of existing constituencies". It doesn't go on to add "... but only if we like them."
And I'll put my hand up and acknowledge that I'd allowed myself to get into a frame of mind in which I was actively seeking to abolish or improve certain existing arrangements that I dislike, such as the division of Sale and Crosby, Lancaster & Fleetwood, &c. I'm now saying that this approach is entirely unsupported by Rule 5 and I've abandoned it in favour of trying to minimize disruption to the existing arrangement whether I like it or not.
So I'm keeping the current pattern in Sefton and Trafford. I'd even have kept Lancester & Fleetwood if I could (it is within range) but I'm pleased to find that it still bites the dust because of forced changes to neighbouring seats.
Rule 5 also says we should have regard to community ties (or whatever the exact working is). But having regard only really requires us to acknowledge their existence. Anything beyond that is personal choice provided we can give some justification for not giving it more weight. And if having regard to existing constituencies is in conflict with having regard to reflecting community ties then I'm very much in favour of prioritising the latter. Well, not as such. The only reference to 'local ties' is in the context of their potentially being broken by changes to constituencies. There is no reference to local ties between areas currently in separate constituencies - say, those existing between the two halves of the town of Sale, currently cut in half by a constituency boundary. So while Rule 5 suggests we try to avoid, say, driving a boundary through the middle of a town that is currently united, it is not a Rule 5 objective to unite a town that is currently divided, no matter how strong its internal 'local ties' may be.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 18, 2021 11:10:48 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects.As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc. What did I do to get dragged into this?
|
|
|
Post by Ron Swanson on May 18, 2021 11:31:37 GMT
I suspect the good people of Wetherby would be perfectly content with being paired with Harrogate. They like to think of themselves as North Yorkshire. I'd be stunned if anyone from Wetherby saw themselves as being from Leeds. It just ain't...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,819
|
Post by The Bishop on May 18, 2021 12:29:35 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects. As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc. Minimum change also often ends up with creeping messyness. Sheffield Attercliffe has through a series of "minumum changes" ended up almost entirely excluding Attercliffe and stretching all the way down the south-east of Sheffield. Similarly, the nonsense of adding Stannington to Hallam will be preserved because now that it's in, it's minimum change to keep it in. Though that's why it isn't called Sheffield Attercliffe any more, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 18, 2021 12:33:06 GMT
Minimum change also often ends up with creeping messyness. Sheffield Attercliffe has through a series of "minumum changes" ended up almost entirely excluding Attercliffe and stretching all the way down the south-east of Sheffield. Similarly, the nonsense of adding Stannington to Hallam will be preserved because now that it's in, it's minimum change to keep it in. Though that's why it isn't called Sheffield Attercliffe any more, I suppose. that's because the initial proposals at the last review excluded Attercliffe entirely. The revised ones brought it back in as part of a package deal with changes elsewhere but the name change remained.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 18, 2021 13:01:08 GMT
I suspect the good people of Wetherby would be perfectly content with being paired with Harrogate. They like to think of themselves as North Yorkshire. I'd be stunned if anyone from Wetherby saw themselves as being from Leeds. It just ain't... Indeed. I toyed with adding a paragraph to my submission on the North Yorkshire governance review on an option to take Wetherby "back" into North Yorkshire.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 18, 2021 13:02:49 GMT
I'd be stunned if anyone from Wetherby saw themselves as being from Leeds. It just ain't... Indeed. I toyed with adding a paragraph to my submission on the North Yorkshire governance review on an option to take Wetherby "back" into North Yorkshire. What do you mean "back" ?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 18, 2021 13:21:34 GMT
Indeed. I toyed with adding a paragraph to my submission on the North Yorkshire governance review on an option to take Wetherby "back" into North Yorkshire. What do you mean "back" ? That's why I put it in quotes. It is in the West Riding, so was never in the North Riding, and has never been in North Yorkshire, but it is a very typical North Yorkshire town and is culturally "in" North Yorkshire. Even the map of Leeds makes it obvious, that weird lump on the north-east corner just to get it inside the boundary.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 18, 2021 13:59:30 GMT
I haven't checked back upthread but I presume that on the basis of a single ward split in Sheffield (Richmond, not Manor Castle as I suggested the other day) people have come up with S Yorks and Axholme looking something like this.
It scores reasonably well on the 'unchanged seats' test (Hallam, Brightside & Hillsboro', Penistone & Stocksbridge, Rother Valley) and it means Sheffield and Barnsley are treated as a unit so it cuts back on the cross-border seats compared with a non-split plan. The Doncaster W seat (I suppose you'd call it) isn't pretty, though.
Sorry if I'm replicating something that's been posted before.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on May 18, 2021 16:22:04 GMT
I haven't checked back upthread but I presume that on the basis of a single ward split in Sheffield (Richmond, not Manor Castle as I suggested the other day) people have come up with S Yorks and Axholme looking something like this. It scores reasonably well on the 'unchanged seats' test (Hallam, Brightside & Hillsboro', Penistone & Stocksbridge, Rother Valley) and it means Sheffield and Barnsley are treated as a unit so it cuts back on the cross-border seats compared with a non-split plan. The Doncaster W seat (I suppose you'd call it) isn't pretty, though. Sorry if I'm replicating something that's been posted before.
Yes, that's very similar to what I posted. (I think the only difference is Sitwell and Wickersley North, which I have the other way round.) I'm reconsidering the options in Doncaster, though: I think it might be better to retain Doncaster North more or less unchanged (including Mexborough and Stainforth & Barnby Dun), include Edlington & Warmsworth in the Wentworth & Conisbrough seat, and Tickhill & Wadworth in Doncaster Central. The latter is not ideal, but it's hardly worse than effectively including it in Doncaster North.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 18, 2021 17:40:34 GMT
I haven't checked back upthread but I presume that on the basis of a single ward split in Sheffield (Richmond, not Manor Castle as I suggested the other day) people have come up with S Yorks and Axholme looking something like this. It scores reasonably well on the 'unchanged seats' test (Hallam, Brightside & Hillsboro', Penistone & Stocksbridge, Rother Valley) and it means Sheffield and Barnsley are treated as a unit so it cuts back on the cross-border seats compared with a non-split plan. The Doncaster W seat (I suppose you'd call it) isn't pretty, though. Sorry if I'm replicating something that's been posted before.
Yes, that's very similar to what I posted. (I think the only difference is Sitwell and Wickersley North, which I have the other way round.) I'm reconsidering the options in Doncaster, though: I think it might be better to retain Doncaster North more or less unchanged (including Mexborough and Stainforth & Barnby Dun), include Edlington & Warmsworth in the Wentworth & Conisbrough seat, and Tickhill & Wadworth in Doncaster Central. The latter is not ideal, but it's hardly worse than effectively including it in Doncaster North. Yes, I prefer your second thoughts in Doncaster, which adds Doncaster N to the 'unchanged' list.
Regarding Rotherham, I'm aware I've split Wickersley but it's not a Rule 5 issue because the division already exists. And it allows Rother Valley to be kept unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 29, 2021 7:32:41 GMT
A better split for Calderdale (proposed at a previous review):-
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on May 31, 2021 9:18:47 GMT
A better split for Calderdale (proposed at a previous review):- You know the area better than I do, but it seems to me that that makes the Mytholmroyd/Hebden Bridge/Todmorden area seem even more separated from the rest of its constituency than it does already.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 31, 2021 9:28:35 GMT
A better split for Calderdale (proposed at a previous review):- You know the area better than I do, but it seems to me that that makes the Mytholmroyd/Hebden Bridge/Todmorden area seem even more separated from the rest of its constituency than it does already. It does but that's the best scheme for minimum disruption of electors. You'll recall the North Calderdale/South Calderdale scheme that was proposed for the last failed review. That scheme had some support in Tory and Lib Dem circles. It was a more natural split of the borough although it created two 'safe' seats and would also require a split ward for this review. Any proposal to include Hipperholme in Halifax will be resisted by both main parties for strength of community (the three Brighouse wards are well bonded) and obviously partisan reasons.
|
|