YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,351
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 25, 2021 8:41:20 GMT
I think the question in Somerset is whether it really is unacceptable to separate North Petherton and King's Isle wards from Bridgwater town. Both contain fringes of the urban area, although in neither case any part of the Bridgwater Town Council area (which is rather tightly drawn). If it isn't unacceptable, then islington 's plan (without the exclave) is a good solution. If those wards really shouldn't be separated from Bridgwater, then one option is a West Somerset seat extending down to Chard, as suggested before. Another is to separate the three easternmost wards of Somerset West & Taunton district from Taunton and place them in a Somerton & Glastonbury seat, a bit like this plan by East Anglian Lefty (though the Somerton & Glastonbury seat I have is a bit neater than that Mid Somerset, and doesn't include Wells, while its Taunton and Bridgwater & West Somerset are identical). I don't think separating those wards from Taunton is quite as bad as separating North Petherton and King's Isle from Bridgwater, in that I don't think anything in them would actually be considered part of Taunton, but clearly they look to Taunton and they'd be a bit out on a limb in Somerton & Glastonbury. There are also hybrid approaches which include North Petherton with Bridgwater but not King's Isle.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,951
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Feb 25, 2021 9:33:27 GMT
I think the question in Somerset is whether it really is unacceptable to separate North Petherton and King's Isle wards from Bridgwater town. Both contain fringes of the urban area, although in neither case any part of the Bridgwater Town Council area (which is rather tightly drawn). If it isn't unacceptable, then islington 's plan (without the exclave) is a good solution. If those wards really shouldn't be separated from Bridgwater, then one option is a West Somerset seat extending down to Chard, as suggested before. Another is to separate the three easternmost wards of Somerset West & Taunton district from Taunton and place them in a Somerton & Glastonbury seat, a bit like this plan by East Anglian Lefty (though the Somerton & Glastonbury seat I have is a bit neater than that Mid Somerset, and doesn't include Wells, while its Taunton and Bridgwater & West Somerset are identical). I don't think separating those wards from Taunton is quite as bad as separating North Petherton and King's Isle from Bridgwater, in that I don't think anything in them would actually be considered part of Taunton, but clearly they look to Taunton and they'd be a bit out on a limb in Somerton & Glastonbury. There are also hybrid approaches which include North Petherton with Bridgwater but not King's Isle. I think your right- there are 3 options, all of which have a problem 1) is the Minehead/ Wellington/ Chard option which is a pretty bad seat, but gives you good Taunton and Bridgwater seats. Is it worth creating one bad seat so all the others are pretty decent. 2) is the North Petherton going into a Mid Somerset seat. That’s partly a problem created by the LGBCE- the housing in South Bridgwater is in North Petherton ward when it really shouldn’t be. I suspect in the next review North Petherton ward could well be split. But for the time being taking North Petherton out of Bridgwater does take some of Bridgwater town out of a Bridgwater seat. 3) Taking the eastern wards out of Taunton. This would take the boundary into the edge of the town. It’s not ideal but I agree it’s not as bad as option 2. Although I’m pretty sure Taunton will spread into this area in the next 10 years which will then present the same issue as option 2.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,999
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 25, 2021 10:42:46 GMT
I agree that YL and andrewp have correctly formulated the dilemma, but my response to it differs from theirs.
You can't play this boundary-drawing game for very long without realizing how common it is for some marginal parts of a town to fall outside the LA area, or group of wards, that generally define it. This is usually because urban sprawl has extended the town outside its limits when the boundaries were drawn, although sometimes it results from the need to achieve reasonable numerical equity in drawing wards.
I agree this is a factor to be taken into account when drawing seats, and that ideally these peripheral parts will be placed in the same seat as the parent town. But it's only one factor among several: other considerations may also be in play, such as having regard to local government boundaries and current seats and, even more important in my view, defining seats that make sense in general terms when one ceases to pore over the local details of the map and takes a step back to look at the overall scheme.
This is really a general policy issue and perhaps should be discussed in that thread. But when a scheme of mine is objected to on the grounds that a marginal housing estate, located in a ward that is otherwise rural in character, is separated from its parent town, my first reaction is to see whether this problem can be rectified without disrupting the overall scheme. Often, it can; but when it can't, I'd give priority to making sure the scheme works at a macro level even if, in order to achieve this, a marginal housing estate has to end up on the wrong side of the line.
In the instant case, I feel the seats I've suggested make broad sense at the macro level besides showing good regard for LA boundaries. The exclusion of marginal areas of Bridgwater is certainly a drawback, I don't deny it; but resolving it means wholesale changes, a less satisfactory map overall, and probably two seats extending into three LAs compared with zero in my scheme. (I can get it down to one 3-LA seat but only by severely disrupting Yeovil, a seat that otherwise just needs a light trim to get within range.)
To sum up: - Is it desirable to get peripheral areas of a town in the same seat as the rest of it, even if they are located in wards that are mostly not part of the town? Yes.
- Even if this forces the drawing of a map that is makes less sense overall and is inferior with regard to other factors such as LA boundaries, existing seats, &c? No.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,351
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 25, 2021 10:55:06 GMT
I agree that YL and andrewp have correctly formulated the dilemma, but my response to it differs from theirs. To clarify: I haven't actually made my mind up which of the three approaches I prefer. The gains elsewhere might indeed make up for the drawbacks around Bridgwater.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 26, 2021 18:55:23 GMT
It makes it all the more sad really that my own county is one of the few where a cross-county arrangement is unavoidable and even more so when it has to be paired with such a shithole of a county as Bedfordshire If only kevinlarkin would give us England All Wards on the new numbers. Then someone might come up with a plan to combine Bedfordshire with Milton Keynes instead. I might do that after we get the electorates for the 2021/22 prospective wards, but it is quite clear from the legislation which regions the BCE must have regard to, if they decide to have regard for regions, and it is equally clear that the BCE will decide to have regard for these regions.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 11, 2021 1:46:07 GMT
58 seats Quotas by county and unitary: Cornwall 5.95 Scilly 0.02 Devon (CC area) 8.52 Plymouth 2.60 Torbay 1.40 (Devon total 12.53) Dorset (unitary) 4.08 BCP 3.92 Somerset (CC area) 5.80 North Somerset 2.24 BANES 1.93 Bristol 4.57 Gloucestershire (CC area) 6.59 South Glos 2.90 Wiltshire 5.15 Swindon 2.12 These figures add up to 57.79 - where does the error lie?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 11, 2021 6:49:18 GMT
58 seats Quotas by county and unitary: Cornwall 5.95 Scilly 0.02 Devon (CC area) 8.52 Plymouth 2.60 Torbay 1.40 (Devon total 12.53) Dorset (unitary) 4.08 BCP 3.92 Somerset (CC area) 5.80 North Somerset 2.24 BANES 1.93 Bristol 4.57 Gloucestershire (CC area) 6.59 South Glos 2.90 Wiltshire 5.15 Swindon 2.12 These figures add up to 57.79 - where does the error lie? Is there an error? Why should it add up to 58.00 for the whole region? The quota is a national figure so it seems quite plausible (I haven't checked) that the total electorate for the region would be 57.79 quotas
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 11, 2021 9:32:38 GMT
These figures add up to 57.79 - where does the error lie? Is there an error? Why should it add up to 58.00 for the whole region? The quota is a national figure so it seems quite plausible (I haven't checked) that the total electorate for the region would be 57.79 quotas The way I've always done it in the past is to divide the regional allocation up between the counties - it seems more useful that way, especially when we know that it's very unlikely that there'll be any seats that cross regional boundaries. eg. in this case there are actually 58 seats to allocate in the region, not 57.79.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 11, 2021 9:36:12 GMT
I'm afraid that's the wrong way to do it. The South West is going to get 58 seats, but it's entitlement is to 57.79. Doing it your way can cause problems when you're dealing with groupings that are only just within quota, because it can make you think you have more leeway than you actually do.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 11, 2021 10:54:19 GMT
I've "finished" the South West now. ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/south-west/I've managed to do all the counties separately. Wiltshire: seats completely redrawn to avoid splitting any wards. Gloucs/Bristol: the possibilities are endless - getting a satisfactory arrangement on the north side of Greater Bristol is tricky though. Somerset: I've gone for the 4-district seat option, plus a split ward in BANES. Devon: can be done on its own if there's one split ward in Plymouth. Dorset: a bit like Wiltshire, splitting one ward might be preferable to making major changes.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 11, 2021 11:08:44 GMT
I'm afraid that's the wrong way to do it. The South West is going to get 58 seats, but it's entitlement is to 57.79. Doing it your way can cause problems when you're dealing with groupings that are only just within quota, because it can make you think you have more leeway than you actually do. Okay. My memory might be wrong anyway - age is starting to take its toll...
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,351
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 11, 2021 20:00:13 GMT
I've "finished" the South West now. ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/south-west/I've managed to do all the counties separately. Wiltshire: seats completely redrawn to avoid splitting any wards. Gloucs/Bristol: the possibilities are endless - getting a satisfactory arrangement on the north side of Greater Bristol is tricky though. Somerset: I've gone for the 4-district seat option, plus a split ward in BANES. Devon: can be done on its own if there's one split ward in Plymouth. Dorset: a bit like Wiltshire, splitting one ward might be preferable to making major changes. Wiltshire and Cornwall are both "prospective wards" areas, so you'll probably have to come back to these, though I don't see Cornwall causing any major difficulties. The fact you found that solution on the current wards makes me a little more optimistic that there will be a reasonable solution on the new ones. Devon can be done on its own with no split wards (three or four plans posted upthread) though I'm not against considering a split in Plymouth. In Dorset, the question is whether to respect the new unitary boundary or not. The precedent in this sort of situation is that the BCE does re-draw constituencies where there have been major changes in local government boundaries, though that may change with the new rules. Personally I lean towards a principle that major local government boundaries should normally take precedence over "minimum change" (mainly to avoid cross-county seats created in this review being protected in future ones) which would suggest respecting it, but I don't have a strong opinion.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 18, 2021 1:27:06 GMT
I've "finished" the South West now. ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/south-west/I've managed to do all the counties separately. Wiltshire: seats completely redrawn to avoid splitting any wards. Gloucs/Bristol: the possibilities are endless - getting a satisfactory arrangement on the north side of Greater Bristol is tricky though. Somerset: I've gone for the 4-district seat option, plus a split ward in BANES. Devon: can be done on its own if there's one split ward in Plymouth. Dorset: a bit like Wiltshire, splitting one ward might be preferable to making major changes. Wiltshire and Cornwall are both "prospective wards" areas, so you'll probably have to come back to these, though I don't see Cornwall causing any major difficulties. The fact you found that solution on the current wards makes me a little more optimistic that there will be a reasonable solution on the new ones. Devon can be done on its own with no split wards (three or four plans posted upthread) though I'm not against considering a split in Plymouth. In Dorset, the question is whether to respect the new unitary boundary or not. The precedent in this sort of situation is that the BCE does re-draw constituencies where there have been major changes in local government boundaries, though that may change with the new rules. Personally I lean towards a principle that major local government boundaries should normally take precedence over "minimum change" (mainly to avoid cross-county seats created in this review being protected in future ones) which would suggest respecting it, but I don't have a strong opinion. Looking at the plans upthread, the better arrangements for Plymouth rely on there being an unnecessary cross-border seat with Somerset, so I'm discounting those. Regarding the other three plans, I slightly prefer Neath West's to yours or The Real Riga's. As you can tell, I'd like to keep two wholly Plymouth seats (west of the Plym), but since it would be necessary to take a bite out of one of them anyway, perhaps it's not worth fighting for the split ward option. As far as Dorset is concerned, I don't think that moving the seats to correspond with the "new" LA boundaries is worth the disruption it would cause.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,999
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Mar 18, 2021 10:00:14 GMT
Wiltshire and Cornwall are both "prospective wards" areas, so you'll probably have to come back to these, though I don't see Cornwall causing any major difficulties. The fact you found that solution on the current wards makes me a little more optimistic that there will be a reasonable solution on the new ones. Devon can be done on its own with no split wards (three or four plans posted upthread) though I'm not against considering a split in Plymouth. In Dorset, the question is whether to respect the new unitary boundary or not. The precedent in this sort of situation is that the BCE does re-draw constituencies where there have been major changes in local government boundaries, though that may change with the new rules. Personally I lean towards a principle that major local government boundaries should normally take precedence over "minimum change" (mainly to avoid cross-county seats created in this review being protected in future ones) which would suggest respecting it, but I don't have a strong opinion. Looking at the plans upthread, the better arrangements for Plymouth rely on there being an unnecessary cross-border seat with Somerset, so I'm discounting those. Regarding the other three plans, I slightly prefer Neath West's to yours or The Real Riga's. As you can tell, I'd like to keep two wholly Plymouth seats (west of the Plym), but since it would be necessary to take a bite out of one of them anyway, perhaps it's not worth fighting for the split ward option. As far as Dorset is concerned, I don't think that moving the seats to correspond with the "new" LA boundaries is worth the disruption it would cause. Er ... (raises hand) I wouldn't normally plug my own plans so unsubtly, but I did a Devon on 18 Jan (p6) that has a lot in common with other plans and in particular adopted with thanks the Plymouth arrangement from the YL scheme; but crucially it rearranged the C Devon seat so that it no longer straddles Dartmoor, a change that also has the benefit of allowing the W Devon & Torridge seat to survive as is except for the loss of a few marginal wards (I'd simplify the name to W Devon though).
Regarding Dorset, you may be right about what BCE will do, but also on p6 I posted a plan that respects the UA boundaries and, unlike many other schemes (and the current map) keeps the whole Weymouth area together including Chickerell.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 18, 2021 14:44:02 GMT
Regarding Dorset, you may be right about what BCE will do, but also on p6 I posted a plan that respects the UA boundaries and, unlike many other schemes (and the current map) keeps the whole Weymouth area together including Chickerell.
Swanage and Lyme Regis?
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,999
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Mar 18, 2021 15:30:51 GMT
Regarding Dorset, you may be right about what BCE will do, but also on p6 I posted a plan that respects the UA boundaries and, unlike many other schemes (and the current map) keeps the whole Weymouth area together including Chickerell.
Swanage and Lyme Regis? I prefer to think of it as South Dorset.
There's no wholly satisfactory plan in Dorset/BCP and a minimum change approach also has its problems (apart from riding roughshod over the boundary between the UAs). So I thought this plan was worth posting, despite its slightly odd appearance, because no one else had suggested it and it has solid strengths: it respects the UA boundary, avoids trimming peripheral bits off Weymouth, generates a perfectly sensible E Dorset seat around the fringes of BCP, and, I'd argue, allows a surprisingly tidy north-south split of the main body of the county (and the numbers allow you to switch either Beaminster or Winterbourne N (but not both) into the South seat if you prefer). But I'm not saying the plan is perfect and I wouldn't go to the stake for it.
In Devon, on the other hand, a cross-Dartmoor seat will, almost by definition, have terrible internal comms, especially in winter, so I'm firmly of the view that it should be avoided if possible and I was pleased to come up with a way of achieving this.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 25, 2021 8:28:23 GMT
Looking at the new figures for Wiltshire, I think a ward split may be the best option namely splitting Amesbury East and Bulford into its two component parts (Bulford staying in Devizes, Amesbury East in Salisbury). All the seats then can be maintained with more or less minimal change. No doubt some configuration which avoids ward splits could be found but its bound to be a mess
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 25, 2021 8:31:10 GMT
Alternatively you can put all of that ward in Devizes and leave out the Swindon ward of Ridgeway, instead sorting the excess Swindon electorate by linking it with Gloucestershire as islington has suggested. Of course that splits the town of Amesbury which is unsatisfactory so a split of that ward seems to have intrinsic merit
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,351
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 25, 2021 8:53:54 GMT
I think I have a Wiltshire (including Swindon) plan with no split wards. (I'm not entirely confident yet as I need to check I don't have a silly exclave due to a spreadsheet blunder.) Nowhere near minimal change and the odd awkward feature but not completely disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 25, 2021 9:05:30 GMT
I expected it would be possible but this is a case where I think minimum change as a criteria should trump the need to keep a ward intact where as in this case it is very obviously divided between two distinct areas (separate parishes, divided by a major highway etc)
|
|