YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,309
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 19, 2021 18:16:59 GMT
Yeah, its not unlike putting Churchdown/Brockworth et al into a "Cotswolds" seat. They don't belong there, simple as. I don't think anyone has suggested that have they? Possibly not on here, but the BCE's initial proposals do exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 19, 2021 18:19:37 GMT
I don't think anyone has suggested that have they? Possibly not on here, but the BCE's initial proposals do exactly that. I realised that after I had posted. All the more reason to come up with a better scheme here. The Commission plan here is bizarre
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,309
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 19, 2021 18:52:12 GMT
Believe me there aren't good road links at all. At best there are a couple of long, twisting routes that are closed or impassable half the time anyway. In addition to which there's just no local connection. Yate us a place you go through on the train to Bristol, Thornbury is a rugby club you play a couple of times a year. Stroud is where you go for work, shopping, leisure, education, lots of services including banks, some health services, lots of youth services (lots of them based in Stroud and operating in Dursley). It would be like trying to link Moreton-in-Marsh with Churchdown and Brockworth But surely what you say about local ties to Stroud applies if anything even more to the areas on the other side of Stroud like Chalford, Slad and Painswick all of which are part of the Stroud "Five Valleys" and which have been put in the BCE's proposed Cotswolds seat. (And I seriously doubt that anyone in those places looks to Stow on the Wold or Moreton in Marsh or even the Cheltenham/Gloucester suburbs as a local centre.) Unfortunately the current Stroud constituency is oversized, so something has to be taken out. I do have a slightly off the wall suggestion. This is that the new seat in the area should contain the Thornbury area of South Glos, the Severn Vale and Wotton under Edge wards of Stroud district, and Quedgeley. That's not the most coherent arrangement, but I'm not convinced it's less so than Thornbury (or Yate), Dursley and Tetbury. And it allows a nice looking Stroud seat containing the whole of the Stroud valleys area together with Cam and Dursley, and a Cotswold seat containing the whole district of that name plus Winchcombe.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,992
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jun 19, 2021 22:47:11 GMT
I don't think anyone has suggested that have they? There seem to be perfectly good road links between Thornbury and Dursley but an alternative is to put Thornbury, Pilning & Severn Beach and Severn Vale in with Bradley Stoke in exchange for the three Yate wards. Looks a bit better on the map but it struck me that the links between Thornbury and Dursley would be better than those between Yate and Dursley. Of course whether somebody can get on a bus between the two places is neither here nor there as I doubt many MPs in rural areas operate that way Believe me there aren't good road links at all. At best there are a couple of long, twisting routes that are closed or impassable half the time anyway. In addition to which there's just no local connection. Yate us a place you go through on the train to Bristol, Thornbury is a rugby club you play a couple of times a year. Stroud is where you go for work, shopping, leisure, education, lots of services including banks, some health services, lots of youth services (lots of them based in Stroud and operating in Dursley). It would be like trying to link Moreton-in-Marsh with Churchdown and Brockworth I'm not sure how seriously to take this. The 'long twisting route' between Dursley and Thornbury appears for most of the distance to be the main A38 trunk road.
And the point about the closeness between north Gloucester and the communities just over the city boundary seems really to boil down to an argument that the northern boundary of Gloucester is in the wrong place. This may well be true but it's not the function of the present exercise to address problems like that: we should take LA boundaries as we find them. And given that Gloucester is too big for a seat, rather than hive off northern wards that are an integral part of the city it has to be better to detach the three southern wards that roughly coincide with the former parish of Quedgeley - prior to 1974 this area was not even part of Gloucester.
I appreciate the comment by Pete Whitehead about my idea of linking Highworth with a Cirencester-based seat but this approach presupposed no ward splits. But I'm more impressed by the 7 seat solution he suggests for Wilts and Swindon, very faithful to the current map and with only two ward splits, both in eminently sensible places. I also agree with him that given the choice between disrupting either Kingswood or Filton & BS, it's better to maintain the former. So if I make a submission in this area, it's likely to be very close to, possibly identical with, his plan.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 20, 2021 4:47:20 GMT
Believe me there aren't good road links at all. At best there are a couple of long, twisting routes that are closed or impassable half the time anyway. In addition to which there's just no local connection. Yate us a place you go through on the train to Bristol, Thornbury is a rugby club you play a couple of times a year. Stroud is where you go for work, shopping, leisure, education, lots of services including banks, some health services, lots of youth services (lots of them based in Stroud and operating in Dursley). It would be like trying to link Moreton-in-Marsh with Churchdown and Brockworth I'm not sure how seriously to take this. The 'long twisting route' between Dursley and Thornbury appears for most of the distance to be the main A38 trunk road.
And the point about the closeness between north Gloucester and the communities just over the city boundary seems really to boil down to an argument that the northern boundary of Gloucester is in the wrong place. This may well be true but it's not the function of the present exercise to address problems like that: we should take LA boundaries as we find them. And given that Gloucester is too big for a seat, rather than hive off northern wards that are an integral part of the city it has to be better to detach the three southern wards that roughly coincide with the former parish of Quedgeley - prior to 1974 this area was not even part of Gloucester.
I appreciate the comment by Pete Whitehead about my idea of linking Highworth with a Cirencester-based seat but this approach presupposed no ward splits. But I'm more impressed by the 7 seat solution he suggests for Wilts and Swindon, very faithful to the current map and with only two ward splits, both in eminently sensible places. I also agree with him that given the choice between disrupting either Kingswood or Filton & BS, it's better to maintain the former. So if I make a submission in this area, it's likely to be very close to, possibly identical with, his plan. Getting between either town and the main road is a ridiculous trek; and have you ever tried to drive it when the A38 is shut? Because I have. It was a nightmare And Quedgely is also an integral part of Gloucester; surely it makes much more sense to keep the city together in that you create two Gloucester- based constituencies split through the middle of the city?
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 20, 2021 4:55:14 GMT
Believe me there aren't good road links at all. At best there are a couple of long, twisting routes that are closed or impassable half the time anyway. In addition to which there's just no local connection. Yate us a place you go through on the train to Bristol, Thornbury is a rugby club you play a couple of times a year. Stroud is where you go for work, shopping, leisure, education, lots of services including banks, some health services, lots of youth services (lots of them based in Stroud and operating in Dursley). It would be like trying to link Moreton-in-Marsh with Churchdown and Brockworth But surely what you say about local ties to Stroud applies if anything even more to the areas on the other side of Stroud like Chalford, Slad and Painswick all of which are part of the Stroud "Five Valleys" and which have been put in the BCE's proposed Cotswolds seat. (And I seriously doubt that anyone in those places looks to Stow on the Wold or Moreton in Marsh or even the Cheltenham/Gloucester suburbs as a local centre.) Unfortunately the current Stroud constituency is oversized, so something has to be taken out. I do have a slightly off the wall suggestion. This is that the new seat in the area should contain the Thornbury area of South Glos, the Severn Vale and Wotton under Edge wards of Stroud district, and Quedgeley. That's not the most coherent arrangement, but I'm not convinced it's less so than Thornbury (or Yate), Dursley and Tetbury. And it allows a nice looking Stroud seat containing the whole of the Stroud valleys area together with Cam and Dursley, and a Cotswold seat containing the whole district of that name plus Winchcombe. Not really, Stroud is at the edge of the Cotswolds and very much at the hear of the 5 valleys whereas those areas are Cotswolds areas and only at the edge of the five valleys. They are demographic and culturally more similar to the Cotswolds than they are to Stroud. Ideally you would have a Stroud constituency that was coterminous with the district but obviously that isn't possible. The wards it makes most sense to remove are those that fit worst in Stroud and/or for best elsewhere. The obvious choice is Hardwicke which is essentially a Gloucester suburb; Kingswood is sort of semi-detached from the district, then you're into removing the Cotswolds wards, from Painswick down to Minchinhampton. I think that gives you one ward "leeway"; compared to the BCE I'd possibly swap Chalford for Kingswood but there are arguments for keeping either. Your alternative plan is certainly reasonable and I looked at doing something similar. There is a certain argument for keeping areas of the Severn Vale together and Berkely often feels a bit detached from (and ignored by) Stroud anyway. Wotton might not be happy but that's probably true of their current placing as well and they look south far more than Dursley does so it does make some sense
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,309
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 20, 2021 9:01:10 GMT
I understand why some would prefer to disrupt Filton & Bradley Stoke than Kingswood. However, on balance I think that the arguments aren't strong enough to outweigh the fact that with the BCE's Bristol North East seat I can get a seat which contains the leftover Bristol suburbs and both Yate and Chipping Sodbury, whereas with the alternative approach I can't.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 20, 2021 10:16:40 GMT
I understand why some would prefer to disrupt Filton & Bradley Stoke than Kingswood. However, on balance I think that the arguments aren't strong enough to outweigh the fact that with the BCE's Bristol North East seat I can get a seat which contains the leftover Bristol suburbs and both Yate and Chipping Sodbury, whereas with the alternative approach I can't. you can't do that with the BCE approach either? There's more Kingswood in their Keynsham than in their Bristol NE!
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,309
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 20, 2021 10:23:04 GMT
I understand why some would prefer to disrupt Filton & Bradley Stoke than Kingswood. However, on balance I think that the arguments aren't strong enough to outweigh the fact that with the BCE's Bristol North East seat I can get a seat which contains the leftover Bristol suburbs and both Yate and Chipping Sodbury, whereas with the alternative approach I can't. you can't do that with the BCE approach either? There's more Kingswood in their Keynsham than in their Bristol NE! Just the BCE's Bristol seats (which within the city are good, credit where credit's due) and F & BS, not the rest of their map.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 20, 2021 10:30:03 GMT
you can't do that with the BCE approach either? There's more Kingswood in their Keynsham than in their Bristol NE! Just the BCE's Bristol seats (which within the city are good, credit where credit's due) and F & BS, not the rest of their map. then I don't follow quite what you meant by "leftover Bristol suburbs".
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,309
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 20, 2021 10:34:24 GMT
then I don't follow quite what you meant by "leftover Bristol suburbs". In the "disrupt Kingswood" approach: the S Glos wards in the BCE's "Keynsham & North East Somerset" seat. In the "disrupt Filton & Bradley Stoke" approach: the Patchway, Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford area.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,992
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jun 20, 2021 12:09:05 GMT
I can't remember whether I posted this before (apologies if so) but here's a plan to obviate all difficulties in this area:
Kingswood and Kingswood - 76148.
Seriously, though, the reason I thought Kingswood might be a better candidate for preservation than F&BS is that it has a longer history and was once a local government unit. I wouldn't go to the stake over it either way.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,992
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jun 20, 2021 12:30:16 GMT
Actually I could live with this as a scheme for the S Glos area.
It's still F&BS that gets disrupted but it's quite a tidy-looking Bristol N & Filton seat; Kingswood is preserved, more or less; and Thornbury is reasonably compact and wholly within S Glos. The Yate seat (calling it that for argument) avoids dividing Yate from Chipping Sodbury and while Dursley and Cam are cruelly sundered from Stroud, at least the inhabitants can get to Yate by train and Tetbury along the A4135 so they need never brave the perils of the A38.
Bristol North and Filton - 71827 Kingswood - 71994 Thornbury - 75711 Yate - 72089
Names at this stage are for convenience only and are negotiable - in particular I accept Yate isn't very central in the seat I've named after it.
Edited to add: Sorry, I've just noticed that Charfield ward can be added to the Yate seat, which results in a shorher boundary with Thornbury. In this configuation: Thornbury 72206; Yate 75594.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 20, 2021 12:56:14 GMT
You're all fucking morons aren't you? Endless comments about pitchforks in various places until it comes from someone who actually lives in the area
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 20, 2021 13:12:40 GMT
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,992
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jun 20, 2021 13:13:52 GMT
Well, European Lefty , pardon me for trying to meet your concerns. I wasn't persuaded by what you said about the difficulty of driving from Dursley to Thornbury, but I took note of it anyway. And it was you yourself that pointed out the railway link to Yate. This is the second time you've now been unwarrantably rude to me. If I'd addressed another poster even once in these terms, I'd feel a strong need to apologize. And I'll make what submissions I like, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 20, 2021 13:23:24 GMT
Well if the numbers were different it would make perfect sense to link it with Evesham….. the numbers are right, only the rules are in the way! Think about it. Devon is worth 12.52 seats. The forum has shown it works for 13. Somerset CC is worth 5.8 seats. The forum has shown it works for 6. Bristol and the Avon Somersets are worth 8.74 seats. Pretty sure they'd work well for 9 (featuring Bristol SE & Keynsham and a NE Somerset successor you'd probably want to name N Somerset).S Gloucestershire is worth 2.9 and can stand alone. Yet that is one seat more than the Commission is proposing. Wiltshire is worth 7.27. The forum has shown it works for 7. Gloucestershire CC is worth 6.59. It absolutely can not work for either 6 or 7 seats. And while Worcestershire is worth exactly its 6 seats, the commission is currently squeezing 0.4 of an extra seat into Staffordshire and the Black Country. Bromsgrove N & some Black Country town, Bromsgrove S & Droitwich, Evesham & Tewkesbury, and your overall seat total is correct again!
Since there is no way of convincing the Commission of that though, I meant a Tewkesbury and North Cotswolds seat. Wasn't there once a Tewkesbury & Cirencester? Tewkesbury is the abnormous bit in the current Tewkesbury seat, which really is the third Glostenham seat already. And the Commission's proposed "Cotswolds" is awful. As also shown by the above maths bit, pairing Gloucestershire CC and S Gloucestershire really isn't helpful on the numbers. Squeezing 18 seats into Somerset CC and Devon (or even better 12 into Devon full stop) is the ticket to reduce the number of humongous cross-authority seats. Of course if you subsume everything to the "no cross authority seats" logic Banes can also stand alone, only pairing Bristol and N Somerset, but... Playing with boundary assistant at sb else's laptop and the bolded part was a brave statement. Not only because ward sizes are in the way but mostly because Keynsham is just smaller than I imagined it to be. Dammit. For Gloucestershire and Wiltshire though... not only can you draw Tewkesbury out of "Tewkesbury" if you want, you can have your cake and eat it too and remove Quedgeley from Gloucester. If you're prepared for the Suburbs seat to be a four-district seat, that is. You can have a more minimum changey Stroud. You can also keep Wiltshire far closer to the current map - Salisbury as the commission has it, SW otherwise unchanged, Chippenham only losing Corsham, Devizes recognizable - while keeping the Cirencester crosscounty seat. N Wiltshire here so named because it keeps more than half of that seat together, though it doesn't include northernmost Wiltshire anymore.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 20, 2021 13:24:05 GMT
Getting between either town and the main road is a ridiculous trek; and have you ever tried to drive it when the A38 is shut? Because I have. It was a nightmare That is one of the more ridiculous objections I have seen to a constituency. So now not only does the Boundary Commission have to ensure there are road links between the various parts of a constituency, there needs to be multiple A roads just in case one is closed?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 20, 2021 13:35:21 GMT
Lefty, I get it that you don't like the idea of a Thornbury-Dursley (or, worse, Thornbury-Tetbury) seat but it's hardly cruel or unusual for dissimilar small towns in a county to be grouped together for parliamentary purposes. (The MP is very likely to have a car, so the lack of a bus or train between those towns is irrelevant.) And surely you can see that combining them *must* be better than combining Gloucestershire towns with Wiltshire and Somerset towns.
Having said that, I've taken on board all the points you've made. For example, although I have got a plan that adds Quedgeley to Stroud, I agree that it's better to take northern wards out of Gloucester. And, as in your plan, I have a plan that takes Charlton Kings out of Cheltenham; however I think it's unlikely that the Commission will do this.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jun 20, 2021 13:41:16 GMT
Well, European Lefty , pardon me for trying to meet your concerns. I wasn't persuaded by what you said about the difficulty of driving from Dursley to Thornbury, but I took note of it anyway. And it was you yourself that pointed out the railway link to Yate. This is the second time you've now been unwarrantably rude to me. If I'd addressed another poster even once in these terms, I'd feel a strong need to apologize. And I'll make what submissions I like, thanks. The cross between the Stroud district and South Gloucestershire is necessary to undo the Commission's butchery of Kingswood and the unnecessary county hopping over the Somerset boundary. As others have said the Yate/Thornbury-Dursley constituency is not perfect but it is better than the alternatives.
|
|