|
Post by pepperminttea on Jul 30, 2021 14:16:08 GMT
Actually, this isn't entirely crazy -
The Swindon seats as pepperminttea had them, W Wilts and Salisbury as I had them, plus -
N Wilts - 76596. (Or 'Chippenham')
Devizes - 75257. (Or 'Mid Wilts')
E Wilts - 75202. (Or 'Marlborough & Amesbury', possibly)
In fact the five non-Swindon seats could be given simple compass-point names of N, S, E, W and Mid, which would have a pleasing symmetry about it.
This is pretty good! A ward split or two would obviously be better, but failing that this would be the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 30, 2021 15:25:32 GMT
Thanks. Given that the rules of this strangely compelling game seem to make a north-south split of Swindon impossible (unless you want to cross the Swindon border twice), is this a slightly better east-west split?
Swindon West - 76376. Swindon East - 76477.
Can someone please talk me out of submitting this (and the Wilts plan I posted a few hours ago) as a late supplement to my South West proposals?
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 30, 2021 16:21:22 GMT
Thanks. Given that the rules of this strangely compelling game seem to make a north-south split of Swindon impossible (unless you want to cross the Swindon border twice), is this a slightly better east-west split?
Swindon West - 76376. Swindon East - 76477.
Can someone please talk me out of submitting this (and the Wilts plan I posted a few hours ago) as a late supplement to my South West proposals?
that particular instance of crossing twice (in the original proposals) looks perfectly sensible and probably the correct call to me tbh.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 30, 2021 17:20:47 GMT
Thanks. Given that the rules of this strangely compelling game seem to make a north-south split of Swindon impossible (unless you want to cross the Swindon border twice), is this a slightly better east-west split?
Swindon West - 76376. Swindon East - 76477.
Can someone please talk me out of submitting this (and the Wilts plan I posted a few hours ago) as a late supplement to my South West proposals?
that particular instance of crossing twice (in the original proposals) looks perfectly sensible and probably the correct call to me tbh. I note that if you want to do a North/South split of Swindon but also treat Wiltshire on its own, then Swindon South in the initial proposals has room to add Ridgeway and Swindon North can take Cricklade or Purton. Presumably you can get five seats out of the rest if you kick it around long enough?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 30, 2021 20:28:24 GMT
that particular instance of crossing twice (in the original proposals) looks perfectly sensible and probably the correct call to me tbh. I note that if you want to do a North/South split of Swindon but also treat Wiltshire on its own, then Swindon South in the initial proposals has room to add Ridgeway and Swindon North can take Cricklade or Purton. Presumably you can get five seats out of the rest if you kick it around long enough? Maybe I haven't kicked it around long enough but I can't see a way, except the plan I posted back on 10 Jul, which does the job in a way but is really ugly.
In contrast, so long as you're not worried about minimum change the plan I posted earlier today actually works out pretty well. But it seems to be reliant on having to accommodate only Ridgeway ward (2702 electors) in a Wilts seat. Once you swap Wroughton out as well, offset by Cricklade or Purton, it's another couple of thousand voters and one seat or another seems to end up over the top.
I could be missing something, of course.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 31, 2021 9:11:03 GMT
Glad to hear it. Both of the constraints I have insisted upon do not, of course, preclude treating Gloucestershire and Somerset alongside each other (although I'd prefer to avoid anything like 'Kingswood & Keynsham' if possible) or more realistically, considering them together with Bristol. My submission treats Gloucestershire and Bristol together and Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon (as ceremonial counties) each separately. I presume you have something for this region either submitted or close to submission. Glad to hear it and yes, I do have something that's almost ready. Most of my proposals' actual boundaries have been set for months and I'm reasonably content with them. It's just a question of finishing the write-up and getting everything on the spreadsheet in the right order now. The only recent changes have seen two slight re-jigs of the boundaries for Plymouth and the successor to the Devon SW seat, which I decided I needed to play around with some more until I was happy.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,851
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 31, 2021 9:12:59 GMT
My submission treats Gloucestershire and Bristol together and Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon (as ceremonial counties) each separately. I presume you have something for this region either submitted or close to submission. Glad to hear it and yes, I do have something that's almost ready. Most of my proposals' actual boundaries have been set for months and I'm reasonably content with them. It's just a question of finishing the write-up and getting everything on the spreadsheet in the right order now. The only recent changes have seen two slight re-jigs of the boundaries for Plymouth and the successor to the Devon SW seat, which I decided I needed to play around with some more until I was happy. Which bits are you going to propose taking out of Taunton?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 1, 2021 10:52:07 GMT
Glad to hear it and yes, I do have something that's almost ready. Most of my proposals' actual boundaries have been set for months and I'm reasonably content with them. It's just a question of finishing the write-up and getting everything on the spreadsheet in the right order now. The only recent changes have seen two slight re-jigs of the boundaries for Plymouth and the successor to the Devon SW seat, which I decided I needed to play around with some more until I was happy. Which bits are you going to propose taking out of Taunton? West Monkton, Norton Fitzwarren, Comeytrowe and Bishop's Hull all have to go into the Minehead/Wellington seat to make the numbers work, but it's better than the east-west split of Taunton proper that I was originally going to suggest!
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,702
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Feb 7, 2022 16:16:59 GMT
Amusingly blatant gerrymander put forward by the Tories in Cheltenham, proposing the removal of St Paul's ward without any supporting argument.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 8, 2022 12:41:17 GMT
Did you plagiarise my Wiltshire scheme islington or did you arrive at such a sensible idea independently ?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 8, 2022 13:15:27 GMT
Did you plagiarise my Wiltshire scheme islington or did you arrive at such a sensible idea independently ? Plagiarism? How dare you, sir? I prefer to call it 'research'. Seriously - Yes, it was a great plan so I adopted it. My only contribution was to work out the polling districts for the ward split in Swindon.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,279
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 11, 2022 18:35:21 GMT
I am horrified to find that I agree with the basic premise of representation number 85451.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2022 10:52:25 GMT
Continuing with my effective series of suggestions that alter things people aren't bothered about and ignore things they hate, here's a tidy-up of Somerset which nevertheless retains Tiverton & Minehead: Thornbury & Yate 69787 - Winterbourne does go better with Filton & Bradley Stoke, but the boundary mostly follows the motorway so this seems tolerable Kingswood 71994 Filton & Bradley Stoke 71252 - keeps Staple Hill & Mangotsfield and doesn't take Emerson Green to minimise change, but the reverse works Bristol NW 76783 - matches initial proposals Bristol Central 70227 - matches initial proposals but see below Bristol East 77378 - over the limit, so a ward split is needed. Bits of Lawrence Hill near Temple Meads are probably the best answer? Bristol South 70820 - loses Hengrove rather than Knowle Bristol SE & Keynsham 71708 - if you're treating South Gloucestershire on its own, you have to cross somewhere... Bath 73241 - matches initial proposals Frome 73479 - gains Paulton and environs, loses its South Somerset orphan ward Wells 72766 - minor changes from the initial proposals North Somerset 70612 - loses Wrington Weston 70722 - matches initial proposals Bridgwater 75747 - gains Knoll Glastonbury & Somerton 72044 - gains an orphan ward from Frome Yeovil 73957 - matches initial proposals I don't think the traditional counties brigade in Somerset would be happy with still sharing a constituency with Devon, even if they don't with Gloucestershire any longer and I'm not sure that their Gloucestershire equivalents care that much about Kingswood. It's also fair to say that the South Gloucestershire seats, whilst functional, are uglier than those you can get if you pair the authority with a neighbour. That said, relative to the initial proposals this plan eliminates a local authority crossing and an orphan ward and does allow one authority to be treated on its own. I'd also argue that several of the constituencies are somewhat nicer under this arrangement than in the initial proposals.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,279
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 1, 2022 8:25:13 GMT
Continuing with my effective series of suggestions that alter things people aren't bothered about and ignore things they hate, here's a tidy-up of Somerset which nevertheless retains Tiverton & Minehead: ... Can you get Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove into the Taunton seat? I think that's the biggest weakness in the BCE's Somerset proposals. I think the South Gloucestershire seats are better than they look, actually, but I think that given that the Bristol boundary must be crossed it makes sense to do so in areas where it is invisible on the ground and allows the parts of the seat outside the city boundary to consist almost entirely of suburban sprawl where many people actually think they live in Bristol. I suspect the BCE's proposals in the Bristol area will survive, with the possible exception that the Tories may get their way on putting Thornbury in with Filton and Sadly Broke and Frenchay & Downend and Emersons Green in with Yate. I'm not convinced that they should, but they've managed to get quite a few people (admittedly quite a lot of whom seem to be Tory councillors) writing in to support it. The weird "Keynsham & North East Somerset" name may change as well, though the Tories' alternative (for the same boundaries) of "North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire South" will no doubt give some on here apoplexy.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 1, 2022 8:46:07 GMT
Continuing with my effective series of suggestions that alter things people aren't bothered about and ignore things they hate, here's a tidy-up of Somerset which nevertheless retains Tiverton & Minehead: ... Can you get Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove into the Taunton seat? I think that's the biggest weakness in the BCE's Somerset proposals. That seems pretty simple. Transfer that ward to Taunton, transfer Upper Culm ward to the Honiton seat, no other changes required. (Although stopping Central Devon reaching into 4 local authorities is also trivially easy to avoid.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 22, 2022 13:43:31 GMT
My objection to the BCE's needless cross-county seats in the South West was strong enough to get me to take a day off work yesterday and travel down to Exeter to give evidence. While I was waiting to speak I listened to a presentation by Alistair Philpott, who also favours 13 whole seats for Devon and has submitted a non-split way of achieving it (BCE 59706). While there are some features of his scheme I don't agree with, I'll give him credit for the right basic approach and he has prompted me to look at the county again. It was notable that he, a Plymouth man, has come up with the same two seats in his home city originally suggested on this site by YL and in view of this endorsement from a native son I think I'll switch to this arrangement as my preferred plan. I'll also go along with the succession of speakers yesterday calling for Priory ward to be retained within the Exeter seat, rather than Pinhill as proposed by the BCE. Fiddling around in the Exeter and E Devon area I came up with the plan below, which nests Exmouth rather better in its seat compared with my earlier proposal, and also gratified me by bringing in the Honiton seat at the exact legal minimum of 69724. I know this isn't a relevant consideration and that I am wrong to allow myself to be influenced by it, but there it is. (The other numbers are: Exeter 71713; Exmouth 70616.)
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 22, 2022 14:32:46 GMT
My objection to the BCE's needless cross-county seats in the South West was strong enough to get me to take a day off work yesterday and travel down to Exeter to give evidence. While I was waiting to speak I listened to a presentation by Alistair Philpott, who also favours 13 whole seats for Devon and has submitted a non-split way of achieving it (BCE 59706). While there are some features of his scheme I don't agree with, I'll give him credit for the right basic approach and he has prompted me to look at the county again. It was notable that he, a Plymouth man, has come up with the same two seats in his home city originally suggested on this site by YL and in view of this endorsement from a native son I think I'll switch to this arrangement as my preferred plan. I'll also go along with the succession of speakers yesterday calling for Priory ward to be retained within the Exeter seat, rather than Pinhill as proposed by the BCE. Fiddling around in the Exeter and E Devon area I came up with the plan below, which nests Exmouth rather better in its seat compared with my earlier proposal, and also gratified me by bringing in the Honiton seat at the exact legal minimum of 69724. I know this isn't a relevant consideration and that I am wrong to allow myself to be influenced by it, but there it is. (The other numbers are: Exeter 71713; Exmouth 70616.)
I also came up with similar seat proposals in Devon-except I believed that Exeter should be renamed Exeter West and that the Exmouth seat should be called Exeter East & Exmouth.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 22, 2022 17:29:03 GMT
My objection to the BCE's needless cross-county seats in the South West was strong enough to get me to take a day off work yesterday and travel down to Exeter to give evidence. Regardless of the merit or otherwise of your proposals (and I have often disagreed with you on the details of your plans and your overall approach - sometimes violently) this is admirable. I have taken days off in the past to travel to Luton and West London for these purposes but this shows a whole other level of commitment.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 22, 2022 17:45:11 GMT
My objection to the BCE's needless cross-county seats in the South West was strong enough to get me to take a day off work yesterday and travel down to Exeter to give evidence. Regardless of the merit or otherwise of your proposals (and I have often disagreed with you on the details of your plans and your overall approach - sometimes violently) this is admirable. I have taken days off in the past to travel to Luton and West London for these purposes but this shows a whole other level of commitment. Thanks Pete.
Before I sound too noble, I booked this a while ago so the train tickets were not that expensive, and I had some leave to burn up that I'd have forfeited if it hadn't been taken by the end of March.
As for disagreeing - I was hoping to avoid violence, would you be prepared to settle for disagreeing vehemently?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 2, 2022 23:07:32 GMT
At the Exeter hearing I happened to meet someone from Plymouth who was there to present his own plan for a non-split 13-seat Devon. He was unaware of this site and had arrived independently at the same non-split arrangement for Plymouth as devised upthread by YL . We had a chat and have since corresponded by email and we have hammered out the map below, which combines elements of both our schemes. He's agreed I can submit it with his support, which I'm going to do.
Edited to add: It is BCE-94126.
|
|