European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 20:41:35 GMT
I've had a look at Gloucestershire and made a few changes from the BCE's proposal that I think are an improvement.
Stroud, FoD, Ciren & N Wilts: as in the BCE proposals
City of Gloucester: takes in Hardwicke from Cotswols (the village itself is essentially a Gloucester suburb almost indistinguishable from Quedgely; the surrounding rural parts can be split into Stroud if needed), loses Huccelcote (in order to reunite the Hucclecote area which is divided across local authorities)
Cotswolds/Tewkesury/Cheltenham: Brockworth, Churchdown and Hucclecote (Tewkesbury) join Hucclecote (Gloucester) in the Tewkesbury seat. Cheltenham takes in Springbank, Swindon Village and Shurdington and Cotswolds Battledown, Charlton Kings and Charlton Park from Cheltenham and Cleve Hill and Prestbury from Tewkesbury
This means that the Cotswolds seat is entirely made up of Cotswolds or Cotswolds-adjacent areas, with the exception of Prestbury which is purely a numbers thing. The Gloucester/Cheltenham suburbs and the parts that don't fit in Gloucester are united in a single seat and included in Tewkesbury, which most electors also share a local authority with. Shurdington in Cheltenham is again a numbers thing; in this scenario Cheltenham is the sacrificial lamb but it's more coherent than the BCE's Cotswolds seat or any Glos/South Glos cross-border seat
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,795
|
Post by iain on Jun 8, 2021 20:47:01 GMT
The solution is obvious, but you don’t like it because you want to be in a winnable seat for Labour. Go on then, what is this "obvious" solution Dursley and Thornbury of course
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 20:50:11 GMT
Go on then, what is this "obvious" solution Dursley and Thornbury of course An infinitely worse and less natural seat than the Cotswolds one
|
|
|
Post by nw12398 on Jun 8, 2021 20:51:11 GMT
I notice that they have proposed the discombobulation of Devon East constituency, and thus the chances of Claire Wright to continue building up support to a winning position. Claire Wright had already said she wasn't going to run again anyway. She also stepped down from Devon County Council this year.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 8, 2021 20:51:41 GMT
I notice that they have proposed the discombobulation of Devon East constituency, and thus the chances of Claire Wright to continue building up support to a winning position. Exmouth (or Exeter East & Exmouth as it should be) takes in a clear majority of the East Devon constituency. It does, but Claire Wright is based in Ottery St Mary which is in the Honiton constituency.
Though it's all a moot point anyway, because she's retired from politics, at least according to the newspapers in Devon.
|
|
|
Post by westmercian on Jun 9, 2021 11:23:40 GMT
Tewkesbury - what a mess.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,729
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 9, 2021 13:01:49 GMT
Stroud, FoD, Ciren & N Wilts: as in the BCE proposals City of Gloucester: takes in Hardwicke from Cotswols (the village itself is essentially a Gloucester suburb almost indistinguishable from Quedgely; the surrounding rural parts can be split into Stroud if needed), loses Huccelcote (in order to reunite the Hucclecote area which is divided across local authorities) Cotswolds/Tewkesury/Cheltenham: Brockworth, Churchdown and Hucclecote (Tewkesbury) join Hucclecote (Gloucester) in the Tewkesbury seat. Cheltenham takes in Springbank, Swindon Village and Shurdington and Cotswolds Battledown, Charlton Kings and Charlton Park from Cheltenham and Cleve Hill and Prestbury from Tewkesbury This means that the Cotswolds seat is entirely made up of Cotswolds or Cotswolds-adjacent areas, with the exception of Prestbury which is purely a numbers thing. The Gloucester/Cheltenham suburbs and the parts that don't fit in Gloucester are united in a single seat and included in Tewkesbury, which most electors also share a local authority with. Shurdington in Cheltenham is again a numbers thing; in this scenario Cheltenham is the sacrificial lamb but it's more coherent than the BCE's Cotswolds seat or any Glos/South Glos cross-border seat Said places are absolutely *not* part of the Cotswolds, geographically or culturally. There's a reason why they were part of Gloucestershire West in the "old days".
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 9, 2021 13:03:47 GMT
Stroud, FoD, Ciren & N Wilts: as in the BCE proposals City of Gloucester: takes in Hardwicke from Cotswols (the village itself is essentially a Gloucester suburb almost indistinguishable from Quedgely; the surrounding rural parts can be split into Stroud if needed), loses Huccelcote (in order to reunite the Hucclecote area which is divided across local authorities) Cotswolds/Tewkesury/Cheltenham: Brockworth, Churchdown and Hucclecote (Tewkesbury) join Hucclecote (Gloucester) in the Tewkesbury seat. Cheltenham takes in Springbank, Swindon Village and Shurdington and Cotswolds Battledown, Charlton Kings and Charlton Park from Cheltenham and Cleve Hill and Prestbury from Tewkesbury This means that the Cotswolds seat is entirely made up of Cotswolds or Cotswolds-adjacent areas, with the exception of Prestbury which is purely a numbers thing. The Gloucester/Cheltenham suburbs and the parts that don't fit in Gloucester are united in a single seat and included in Tewkesbury, which most electors also share a local authority with. Shurdington in Cheltenham is again a numbers thing; in this scenario Cheltenham is the sacrificial lamb but it's more coherent than the BCE's Cotswolds seat or any Glos/South Glos cross-border seat Said places are absolutely *not* part of the Cotswolds, geographically or culturally. There's a reason why they were part of Gloucestershire West in the "old days". I know, that's why I've moved them out of the BCE's Cotswolds seat
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,729
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 9, 2021 13:04:24 GMT
I know that, I was agreeing with you
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,103
|
Post by WJ on Jun 9, 2021 15:06:51 GMT
Cornwall is mostly fine. I would make two minor changes.
The first would be to swap Roche & Bugle with Fowey, Tywardreath & Par, so that the former joins St. Austell & Newquay and the latter joins SE Cornwall.
I would also put St. Newlyn East, Cubert & Goonhavern into Camborne & Redruth and in exchange move either Threemilestone & Chacewater or Lanner, Stithians & Gwennap into Truro & Falmouth. On balance Threemilestone would be the one to swap, though either would work.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2021 16:17:22 GMT
I've been mulling over the South West, and the map below (which I hope is not too small to see) is as far as I've got.
The BCE has treated Devon, Somerset and the former Avon together for 30 seats, and Glos and Wilts (incl Swindon) also together for 14.
But we've shown upthread that Devon works surprisingly well for 13 and Wilts (excluding Swindon) for 5. The 26 remaining seats in this area should be 10 for Somerset (including the two UAs) and 16 for everything else (Bristol, S Glos, Glos, Swindon).
In the scheme below I've tried to do this in a way that preserves at least some elements of the BCE plan. I've kept unchanged the BCE proposals for the Bristol area (6 seats including F&BS) and for Forest of Dean, Cheltenham, Bath, WsM and Yeovil. Also, Taunton is as the BCE has it except for one extra ward; and Somerton & Glastonbury could also have been kept as proposed by the BCE, but I've swapped a couple of wards to eliminate an unnecessary LA boundary-crossing.
Elsewhere: Glos is more respectful of the current map than in the BCE scheme (and Gloucester in particular is much better than the BCE's version); Swindon involves much less change from the current seats; S Glos is not great but at least I've eliminated the BCE's Keynsham monstrosity; Somerset is more respectful of LA boundaries and overall I think is no worse than the BCE version (although the loss of the BCE's Bridgwater seat is a pity). And of course this arrangement allows Wilts and Devon to be treated separately and much improved as posted upthread.
Comments of course welcome, but I'm very likely to submit something along these lines.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 17:02:15 GMT
I've been mulling over the South West, and the map below (which I hope is not too small to see) is as far as I've got.
The BCE has treated Devon, Somerset and the former Avon together for 30 seats, and Glos and Wilts (incl Swindon) also together for 14.
But we've shown upthread that Devon works surprisingly well for 13 and Wilts (excluding Swindon) for 5. The 26 remaining seats in this area should be 10 for Somerset (including the two UAs) and 16 for everything else (Bristol, S Glos, Glos, Swindon).
In the scheme below I've tried to do this in a way that preserves at least some elements of the BCE plan. I've kept unchanged the BCE proposals for the Bristol area (6 seats including F&BS) and for Forest of Dean, Cheltenham, Bath, WsM and Yeovil. Also, Taunton is as the BCE has it except for one extra ward; and Somerton & Glastonbury could also have been kept as proposed by the BCE, but I've swapped a couple of wards to eliminate an unnecessary LA boundary-crossing.
Elsewhere: Glos is more respectful of the current map than in the BCE scheme (and Gloucester in particular is much better than the BCE's version); Swindon involves much less change from the current seats; S Glos is not great but at least I've eliminated the BCE's Keynsham monstrosity; Somerset is more respectful of LA boundaries and overall I think is no worse than the BCE version (although the loss of the BCE's Bridgwater seat is a pity). And of course this arrangement allows Wilts and Devon to be treated separately and much improved as posted upthread.
Comments of course welcome, but I'm very likely to submit something along these lines.
Idiotic and wrong
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 17:02:53 GMT
Please do not submit your Glos/Wilts plan
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2021 17:09:56 GMT
I've been mulling over the South West, and the map below (which I hope is not too small to see) is as far as I've got.
The BCE has treated Devon, Somerset and the former Avon together for 30 seats, and Glos and Wilts (incl Swindon) also together for 14.
But we've shown upthread that Devon works surprisingly well for 13 and Wilts (excluding Swindon) for 5. The 26 remaining seats in this area should be 10 for Somerset (including the two UAs) and 16 for everything else (Bristol, S Glos, Glos, Swindon).
In the scheme below I've tried to do this in a way that preserves at least some elements of the BCE plan. I've kept unchanged the BCE proposals for the Bristol area (6 seats including F&BS) and for Forest of Dean, Cheltenham, Bath, WsM and Yeovil. Also, Taunton is as the BCE has it except for one extra ward; and Somerton & Glastonbury could also have been kept as proposed by the BCE, but I've swapped a couple of wards to eliminate an unnecessary LA boundary-crossing.
Elsewhere: Glos is more respectful of the current map than in the BCE scheme (and Gloucester in particular is much better than the BCE's version); Swindon involves much less change from the current seats; S Glos is not great but at least I've eliminated the BCE's Keynsham monstrosity; Somerset is more respectful of LA boundaries and overall I think is no worse than the BCE version (although the loss of the BCE's Bridgwater seat is a pity). And of course this arrangement allows Wilts and Devon to be treated separately and much improved as posted upthread.
Comments of course welcome, but I'm very likely to submit something along these lines.
Idiotic and wrong Well, there's nothing like constructive criticism.
And this is ... nothing like constructive criticism.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 18, 2021 17:16:48 GMT
There's been a fairly decent Wiltshire+Swindon proposal as well. Just moving the split into Swindon has no selling point. Gloucester is more sensible yes (whatever our friends from Stroud may say) but also more change than the Commission map. The hollowed-out Kingswood seat also seems weird. The Commission's plan to cross out of Bristol there was developped in tandem with the notion of abolishing it.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 17:20:49 GMT
Well, there's nothing like constructive criticism.
And this is ... nothing like constructive criticism.
Your plan for Gloucestershire is such a catastrophic mess that it is probably impossible to actually write anything "constructive". However, if you want to know why your plan for Gloucestershire is such a disaster: 1. You have taken the wrong wards out of Gloucester. The southern edge of the city has very little in common with Stroud District (except the built up area of Hardwicke) whereas the northern suburbs have a great deal in common with the suburbs that ended up in Tewkesbury district. Gloucester City needs to lose wards, the most obvious being Hucclecote as that allows all of Hucclecote to be reunited in a single seat. After that probably Barnwood and if a third is necessary Abbeymead or Longlevens. 2. I don't know why the BCE decided to remove Springbank but it was a mistake. Springbank is a much more integral part of Cheltenham than the wards on the eastern border. 3. Cam and Dursley have nothing to do with Thornbury or Tetbury. There are no bus links, few road links and no train. In addition to which it mixes Gloucestershire market towns, post industrial areas, some agricultural area and Bristol commuter belt and does so across a county boundary when the areas, as I will stress again have no links to each other. 4. Dursley & Thornbury is a crap idea anyway but the execution is, if anything worse. There is just about an argument for a Tetbury-Yate combination but Tetbury-Severn Beach!? If great sprawling constituencies are necessary it helps if the main population centres have some connection but I highly doubt that many people in Severn Beach could even name Tetbury or point to it on a map Also, though this is not quite as serious, a half Glos half Wilts seat is probably better than an orphan ward in Swindon
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 17:21:19 GMT
There's been a fairly decent Wiltshire+Swindon proposal as well. Just moving the split into Swindon has no selling point. Gloucester is more sensible yes (whatever our friends from Stroud may say) but also more change than the Commission map. The hollowed-out Kingswood seat also seems weird. The Commission's plan to cross out of Bristol there was developped in tandem with the notion of abolishing it. No it isn't, as I have just explained
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 18, 2021 17:28:49 GMT
There's been a fairly decent Wiltshire+Swindon proposal as well. Just moving the split into Swindon has no selling point. Gloucester is more sensible yes (whatever our friends from Stroud may say) but also more change than the Commission map. The hollowed-out Kingswood seat also seems weird. The Commission's plan to cross out of Bristol there was developped in tandem with the notion of abolishing it. No it isn't, as I have just explained Gloucester in the sense of Gloucester Constituency. In that a welldefined, city edge area is removed rather than somewhat random bits and pieces. The commission's versions of Cotswolds and Tewkesbury need to be improved in some way (As also their Keynsham). What's your version?
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 17:30:18 GMT
No it isn't, as I have just explained Gloucester in the sense of Gloucester Constituency. In that a welldefined, city edge area is removed rather than somewhat random bits and pieces. The commission's versions of Cotswolds and Tewkesbury need to be improved in some way (As also their Keynsham). What's your version? Removing the northern wards makes much more sense as they actually flow pretty seamlessly into the northern suburbs that are in Tewkesbury district
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,628
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 17:42:47 GMT
Forest of Dean, Ciren & N Wilts, Stroud left as the BCE's initial proposals as those seats are fine. Gloucester suburbs are moved from Cotswolds as they just don't belong there. Hardwicke goes into Gloucester - I'd be open to splitting the town itself from the rural parts but the BCE dislike orphan wards and I suspect they'd have a fit over an orphan polling district. People in Hardwicke very much look to Gloucester - it merges reasonably well into Quedgely, has better road and bus links to Gloucester than Stroud or the Cotswolds, people there tend to use Gloucester for shopping, leisure, health services, education, you name it. Hucclecote is reunited and northern Gloucester suburbs kept in the same seat. The Tewkesbury link is not ideal but it is a) longstanding b) minimal change c) inline with local government boundaries and d) at least united by the commuter element in both places. To reflect changes this seat's name is changed to Gloucester North &Tewkesbury. Cheltenham reincorporates Springbank. It also takes Shurdington, partly for numbers reasons but it is also a definite Cheltenham suburb. Tewkesbury needs to lose electors and Cotswolds needs to gain them; hence the moving of Cleeve Hill. To avoid either a) splitting Bishop's Cleeve or b) having a funny tendril consisting of Swindon Village, the two Cheltenham wards are removed. Swindon Village returns to Cheltenham, Prestbury goes to Cotswolds. This leaves Cheltenham over quota and Cotswolds under quota so Battledown, Charlton Park and Charlton Kings are removed as they are the least Cheltenham-like and most Cotswoldsy parts of Cheltenham. Prestbury is slightly incongruous in the Cotswold seat, but not much worse than Tekesbury and it is sadly necessary for numerical reasons. The Cotswolds seat is renamed North Cotswolds or North East Gloucestershire to better reflect the area it covers This avoids a Dursley/Yate or Dursley/Thornbury pairing. It also produces a much more coherent Cotswolds seat made up of Cotswolds and Cotswolds-adjacent areas instead of some Cotswolds and some detached Gloucester suburbs (The Cheltenham areas in the seat actually have decent transport links to Bourton, Moreton etc.) The price paid is that Cheltenham is less than ideal but it's still much better and much more coherent than either a) Dursley + Random S Glos bit or b) the BCE's Cotswolds seat
|
|