carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,280
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 20, 2021 15:01:57 GMT
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? And that point you raise presents exactly what problem to eny elector? Under what circumstances?
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jun 20, 2021 19:36:19 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 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? And that point you raise presents exactly what problem to eny elector? Under what circumstances?
If you encourage people to think on that basis - that geography is not relevant to the composition of constituencies - you risk undermining support for the fundamental basis of the current FPTP system. Of which you're strongly in favour, right?
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,280
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 20, 2021 21:49:14 GMT
And that point you raise presents exactly what problem to eny elector? Under what circumstances?
If you encourage people to think on that basis - that geography is not relevant to the composition of constituencies - you risk undermining support for the fundamental basis of the current FPTP system. Of which you're strongly in favour, right? Yes I am a strong supporter of FPTP and believe it to be by far the best system on many levels. Yes I do think that geography, homogeneity, tradition, lack of change, good naming and many other features are of critical importance to constituency structure. I am not much persuaded that those two factors are mutually dependent on one another. Within the terms of both statements, I do see a need for care in the factors for inclusion in the structure of constituencies, but cannot see why good physical communication need be one of them. The electors are concerned about the nature and demography of their 'seat' up to a limited point. IMO they like consistency, a sensible name and a feeling of oneness and continuity and fairness in relative size of electorate. They do not need or want to visit any other part of the seat and the ease of journey from A to B is of little or no consequence to 99% of them. Why would it be? For what conceiveable reason? They want access to a convenient polling station and to feel part of a sensible whole. The fact that a bit of the seat is the other side of the Thames, the M1, the ECML, the lake, the mountain even, does not matter one whit to them. I know it does to a minute minority of obsessives here and to those organizing the election campaign; but why should the design take any account at all of such people? It should entirely about the voters and not 'Us'!
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jun 21, 2021 6:37:50 GMT
Looking at the Glos / Wilts / Swindon options
The new Ciren & N Wilts constituency, makes perfect sense, as the northern part of Wilts, e.g. Cricklade looks towards Cirencester, and Malmesbury/ Tetbury are very well connected. Best keep Highworth out of it, or Swindon will be split over 4 constituencies.
Gloucester is never going to please everyone as there will be a this more linked to Gloucester than the other bit that's left in. It's got to an awkward size, way too large for 1 constituency, but, way too small for 2
Tewkesbury is a north of the Golden Valley constituency now, making it more compact
Cotswold, I'd rename North Cotswolds
Stroud, takes up the area bordering on South Glos, but could look at tweeking wards between here, Cotswold & Ciren/ N Wiltshire
In Wiltshire, I really would not make any significant changes, there's the historical split kept between Swindon, N & W Wilts and S& E Wiltshire (rumoured to be the split for unitary authorities when Wiltshire became unitary)
Only amendment I would make is to split Chiseldon and Lawn and Wroughton and Wichelstowe so the parts in Wroughton and Chiseldon parishes to be in East Wiltshire and parts in South Swindon Parish in Swindon South (I know this won't happen as it would triple the split wards in the SW)
Did look at getting RWB into the new Cirencester seat, but couldn't find a suitable solution
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jun 21, 2021 6:45:04 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... There was a Cirencester and Twekesbury constituency, the 1st General election I voted in this constituency, knowing Nicholas Ridley would be returned comfortably
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 21, 2021 7:22:30 GMT
In Swindon Covingham & Dorcan would need to be carefully divided (unfortunately I don't have figures) with basically Covingham staying in North and Dorcan in South, with the boundary being fixed wherever necessary to make those numbers work. There's a useful parish boundary here. As far as I can tell the polling districts CDB (electorate 1993) and CDE (electorate 1583) are in Nythe, Eldene & Liden CP while the rest of the ward is in either Covingham CP or Stratton St Margaret CP. Putting CDB and CDE in South (where CDE already is) gives South 75953, North 76900.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 21, 2021 12:21:25 GMT
The above discussion has reminded me that there was indeed a "Stroud and Thornbury" constituency once. However its short life - 1950-55 - maybe suggests that as European Lefty claims, it isn't an ideal arrangement for that part of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 21, 2021 16:13:00 GMT
So having established that with a couple of ward splits, Wiltshire works very well alone and that there is a broad scheme that is agreed by most for a 14 seat Gloucestershire/Bristol grouping which does not cross the boundary with Somerset, the question then becomes what to with Somerset and by extension what to do with Devon. I'm aware that plans have been put forward for Devon which don't involve crossing county boundaries but they mostly did involve a fairly ugly arrangement in the Plymouth area. The BCE have settled on a plan in Plymouth which more or less retains the current two seats entirely within the city West of the Plym by way of splitting a ward. I don't think its worth trying to persuade them against doing that and I wouldn't particularly want to, but it does mean there are too few voters in the rest of Devon for 11 seats so a county crossing becomes inevitable. My first instinct was to do this in the East Devon/Dorset area (despite that boundary currently being unmolested). Adding Lyme & Charmouth alone would not disturb the other Dorset seats at all but does not provide enough voters. Adding additionally Marshwood Vale might do and would only requite moving Chalk Valleys from North to West Dorset to keep all the Dorset seats in quota. It sounded good in theory but in practice the seats in the East Devon area did not work well, so I looked at the other alternative which is West Somerset (and which the BCE themselves went for). But without the crossing between South Gloucestershire and BANES there are fewer voters to spare from Somerset and therefore we must work to a lower average electorate size still in the remaining Devon seats. This is what i came up with initially: I'm fairly happy with this. Bridgwater and Taunton mainly retain their hinterlands and I find all the other seats to be quite neat. Barnstaple & Minehead is sub-optimal (by definition I think any cross-county seat is) but I think there are reasonable connections between the two areas (as long as the A39 isn't closed ). It strikes me though that there would be some resistance to the unnecessary ripping up of North Devon (for which the council boundaries, the current boundaries and the proposed boundaries are all identical). So the alternative is again as the BCE have proposed to link Tiverton and Minehead - essentially the same seat but with a bit less West Somerset and a bit more Mid Devon It is again a sub-optimal seat (again by definition) but it enables a neat solution in the remainder of Devon and Somerset and by extension avoids the unnecessary crossing between Gloucestershire and Somerset and between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (while still leaving Cornwall and Dorset in peace) halving the number of cross (ceremonial) county constituencies in this region.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 21, 2021 22:28:42 GMT
If you must treat Devon for 12.5 seats rather than 13, my first instinct would be to link Axminster with Bridport. But the numbers in Dorset don't work for that.
So we're left looking for areas in Somerset to hook up with. The most obvious would be to put all or part of the former West Somerset district in with the more populated bits of North Devon, as in Pete's first plan. If you're going to get Tiverton involved in a cross-border arrangement, then it'd work far better with Wellington than with Minehead. Still not ideal, but better.
The Commission's proposed Bridgwater seat is exactly the same as mine. Both the plans above ditch that in favour or more minimal change to both the existing Bridgwater and Wells constituencies. For that reason it'd be difficult to support, but the first one with the 'Exmoor' cross-county seat certainly has a lot of merit under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 21, 2021 22:35:50 GMT
If you must treat Devon for 12.5 seats rather than 13, my first instinct would be to link Axminster with Bridport. But the numbers in Dorset don't work for that. So we're left looking for areas in Somerset to hook up with. The most obvious would be to put all or part of the former West Somerset district in with the more populated bits of North Devon, as in Pete's first plan. If you're going to get Tiverton involved in a cross-border arrangement, then it'd work far better with Wellington than with Minehead. Still not ideal, but better. The Commission's proposed Bridgwater seat is exactly the same as mine. Both the plans above ditch that in favour or more minimal change to both the existing Bridgwater and Wells constituencies. For that reason it'd be difficult to support, but the first one with the 'Exmoor' cross-county seat certainly has a lot of merit under the circumstances. Interesting point about Wellington - I hadn't considered that. It does look neater and enables Bridgwater to keep the bulk of the West Somerset area which is currently in the seat. It would require North Petherton to move into Taunton though. I also quite like the Bridgwater & Burnham arrangement but the rest of the BCE plan in this region not so much
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 21, 2021 22:41:31 GMT
Yes, the 'Sedgemoor West' version of the Bridgwater can be incorporated into a sensible set of arrangements for Bristol, Dorset, Wiltshire and the rest of Somerset... but Devon is the real sticking point (and, in the BCE proposals, Glos too). I'd accept it being torn up this time if it made for neater constituencies in the rest of the region, I suppose.
North Petherton ending up in a Taunton seat isn't as crazy an idea as it would've sounded a decade or two ago either.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 21, 2021 22:51:34 GMT
Yes, the 'Sedgemoor West' version of the Bridgwater can be incorporated into a sensible set of arrangements for Bristol, Dorset, Wiltshire and the rest of Somerset... but Devon is the real sticking point (and, in the BCE proposals, Glos too). I'd accept it being torn up this time if it made for neater constituencies in the rest of the region, I suppose. North Petherton ending up in a Taunton seat isn't as crazy an idea as it would've sounded a decade or two ago either. Actually that can be avoided anyway - I'd assumed Milverton would go in the Tiverton & Wellington seat but it doesn't have to. The South Quantock panhandle looks a bit awkward but most of the population in that ward are in the Taunton area (and current constituency) and it doesn't interfere with the lines of commuincation between Bridgwater and West Somerset
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 22, 2021 2:55:38 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 Sometimes an area must suffer for the greater good. I am always mindful of my own bias when drawing boundaries in areas I have lived. It is easy to lose objectivity.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 22, 2021 5:58:33 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 Sometimes an area must suffer for the greater good. I am always mindful of my own bias when drawing boundaries in areas I have lived. It is easy to lose objectivity. Yes....I don't think anyone thought splitting Crosby in two was a good idea, but it was difficult not to do it without creating a very odd seat elsewhere
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,972
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jun 22, 2021 10:19:29 GMT
So having established that with a couple of ward splits, Wiltshire works very well alone and that there is a broad scheme that is agreed by most for a 14 seat Gloucestershire/Bristol grouping which does not cross the boundary with Somerset, the question then becomes what to with Somerset and by extension what to do with Devon. I'm aware that plans have been put forward for Devon which don't involve crossing county boundaries but they mostly did involve a fairly ugly arrangement in the Plymouth area. The BCE have settled on a plan in Plymouth which more or less retains the current two seats entirely within the city West of the Plym by way of splitting a ward. I don't think its worth trying to persuade them against doing that and I wouldn't particularly want to, but it does mean there are too few voters in the rest of Devon for 11 seats so a county crossing becomes inevitable. My first instinct was to do this in the East Devon/Dorset area (despite that boundary currently being unmolested). Adding Lyme & Charmouth alone would not disturb the other Dorset seats at all but does not provide enough voters. Adding additionally Marshwood Vale might do and would only requite moving Chalk Valleys from North to West Dorset to keep all the Dorset seats in quota. It sounded good in theory but in practice the seats in the East Devon area did not work well, so I looked at the other alternative which is West Somerset (and which the BCE themselves went for). But without the crossing between South Gloucestershire and BANES there are fewer voters to spare from Somerset and therefore we must work to a lower average electorate size still in the remaining Devon seats. This is what i came up with initially: I'm fairly happy with this. Bridgwater and Taunton mainly retain their hinterlands and I find all the other seats to be quite neat. Barnstaple & Minehead is sub-optimal (by definition I think any cross-county seat is) but I think there are reasonable connections between the two areas (as long as the A39 isn't closed ). It strikes me though that there would be some resistance to the unnecessary ripping up of North Devon (for which the council boundaries, the current boundaries and the proposed boundaries are all identical). So the alternative is again as the BCE have proposed to link Tiverton and Minehead - essentially the same seat but with a bit less West Somerset and a bit more Mid Devon It is again a sub-optimal seat (again by definition) but it enables a neat solution in the remainder of Devon and Somerset and by extension avoids the unnecessary crossing between Gloucestershire and Somerset and between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (while still leaving Cornwall and Dorset in peace) halving the number of cross (ceremonial) county constituencies in this region. Pete, don't you think you're letting the Plymouth tail wag the Devon and Somerset dog? Given that Somerset (including N Som and B&NES) falls fairly well into ten seats, and Devon surprisingly well into 13, I'd much prefer to avoid a cross-county seat.
I acknowledge there's a problem in Plymouth but I'd prefer to look for a resolution within Plymouth rather than allow a ripple effect extending all the way to Somerset. I'd envisage something like this, with a ward split of either Moor View or Southway to shift at least 2871 electors, but no more than 6026, into the SE Devon seat. It's not minimum change in Plymouth, but I think it would be acceptable because it restores the historic Devonport / Sutton split that has a lot of tradition behind it. And this arrangement then allows the rest of Devon to get ten seats as posted somewhere a long way upthread.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 22, 2021 15:37:55 GMT
So having established that with a couple of ward splits, Wiltshire works very well alone and that there is a broad scheme that is agreed by most for a 14 seat Gloucestershire/Bristol grouping which does not cross the boundary with Somerset, the question then becomes what to with Somerset and by extension what to do with Devon. I'm aware that plans have been put forward for Devon which don't involve crossing county boundaries but they mostly did involve a fairly ugly arrangement in the Plymouth area. The BCE have settled on a plan in Plymouth which more or less retains the current two seats entirely within the city West of the Plym by way of splitting a ward. I don't think its worth trying to persuade them against doing that and I wouldn't particularly want to, but it does mean there are too few voters in the rest of Devon for 11 seats so a county crossing becomes inevitable.... Pete, don't you think you're letting the Plymouth tail wag the Devon and Somerset dog? Given that Somerset (including N Som and B&NES) falls fairly well into ten seats, and Devon surprisingly well into 13, I'd much prefer to avoid a cross-county seat.
I acknowledge there's a problem in Plymouth but I'd prefer to look for a resolution within Plymouth rather than allow a ripple effect extending all the way to Somerset. I'd envisage something like this, with a ward split of either Moor View or Southway to shift at least 2871 electors, but no more than 6026, into the SE Devon seat. It's not minimum change in Plymouth, but I think it would be acceptable because it restores the historic Devonport / Sutton split that has a lot of tradition behind it. And this arrangement then allows the rest of Devon to get ten seats as posted somewhere a long way upthread.
I prefer an East West split in Plymouth as well but recognise this game as being the 'art of the possible'. In that respect I find it better to make compromises and to amend existing proposals than to completely redraw the map. As someone who has had some of my recommendations adopted (and I know you have to so that isn't a dig - I'm making a general observation but one based on my 'lived' experience..) I found that my excellent and very comprehensive plan for the East of England was entirely ignored, because it basically tore up the BCE proposals and told them to start again. Whereas in London I had a number of my proposals in a discreet area of Middlesex adopted by saying essentially 'yes, I agree with the fundamentals of the Commission's plan but I believe it could be improved a bit by doing this' (coincidentally this is the same part of London they have made the biggest hash of this time). OK it may be hard to argue that I am offering only slight modifications in this region when I am proposing different sub-regions and different boundaries almost everywhere except for the six in Cornwall, eight in Dorset and a few others in Bristol, Bath, Weston and Plymouth. But I think where I'm looking for changes in an area I am really unhappy with (as I am in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire) then it's worth looking for additional areas in which I can at least acquiesce a little even where I feel their plans are not ideal. Just feel its more likely to get a hearing than 'No. It's all wrong. You're fucking morons'
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 22, 2021 19:20:31 GMT
The other thing to consider here is that though Somerset does work for 10 seats it doesn't work well. This is because of the position of the towns of Bridgwater and Taunton which are both too far West (so as not to allow a Wellington/West Somerset seat which doesn't encroach on their Western suburbs) and too far East (so that if they do as now incorporate the areas to their West they will need to lose areas to their East which are also clearly within their orbit. All the plans published on this thread have found this problem whereas the BCE plan, by removing some excess West Somerset territory avoid it (as does my own variation of their plan). I will have a play with islington's Plymouth proposal to see if anything new can be made out of Devon but I suspect the constraints are still such that nothing very novel is going to emerge there. I still would like to utilise Lyme Regis which is effectively cost free
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 22, 2021 19:44:32 GMT
Less disruption to South West Devon and keeps it to two boroughs. I think the numbers would work. Lyme Regis could be the key afterall
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jun 22, 2021 19:47:18 GMT
I personally think that if West Somerset has to go with a part of Devon, then pairing it with North Devon is better than with the Tiverton area. Most of the population of the West Somerset bit is in Minehead and the connection to North Devon is probably better than the connection with Tiverton from there. I think if you called such a seat North Devon and Exmoor that would be ok.
Having said that the one thing I think looks awful is the Norton Fitzwarren and Staplegrove ward not being in Taunton, That ward is part of the town, and moving Wellington out of the seat is much more preferable to moving that ward out. The Tiverton and Wellington seat that Pete posted last night - the panhandle plan- is the best plan I’ve seen. Ideally Milverton would go with Wiveliscombe and Wellington into the Tiverton seat but I don’t think you can swap it with anywhere.
As Pete rightly identifies, the problem is the positions of Taunton and Bridgwater. If the locations of Bridgwater and Minehead were swapped, this would be much easier.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 23, 2021 7:35:07 GMT
Having had another play around with Somerset I've come to the conclusion that a crossing between Devon and Somerset is desirable, not for Devon's sake but for Somerset's (for the reasons described above). This is also the conclusion that the BCE reached evidently but they utilised too much of Somerset for the task forcing an unnecessary crossing between North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire (with all the horrors that follow from that). Of course it is possible with this plan also to adopt islington 's old school Plymouth arrangement which avoids an unnecessary ward split as well.
|
|