nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by nyx on Nov 30, 2022 15:33:49 GMT
Thinking about it, it would have been quite simple to do a seven-seat Gloucestershire that only takes a couple wards from Wiltshire and largely leaves existing seats intact. You just split the Stroud constituency in half, one half takes on the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham while the other half takes the southwestern extremity of the Cotswolds seat on. And give a couple of wards from Wiltshire to Cotswolds to make up the numbers.
It would be then very easy to make a least-change map of Wiltshire following on from this.
So I have to question the necessity of the BCE’s radical changes, given it’s clearly possible to make a map that largely leaves current seats intact?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 30, 2022 16:06:07 GMT
Yes a lot of the earlier proposals in this thread pretty much involved what you're suggesting above, adding say Highworth and/or Cricklade solved the Wiltshire problem, such as it is, as well as bringing Gloucestershire into quota for seven seats. I suppose once they've decided to pair Gloucestershire and Wiltshire and treat is as a single entity, there is a desire to roughly equalise the electorates across the sub-region, but I don't think there's any requirement for them to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 30, 2022 16:28:42 GMT
They didn't do that in Herts/Beds...
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 30, 2022 17:16:42 GMT
Thinking about it, it would have been quite simple to do a seven-seat Gloucestershire that only takes a couple wards from Wiltshire and largely leaves existing seats intact. You just split the Stroud constituency in half, one half takes on the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham while the other half takes the southwestern extremity of the Cotswolds seat on. And give a couple of wards from Wiltshire to Cotswolds to make up the numbers. It would be then very easy to make a least-change map of Wiltshire following on from this. So I have to question the necessity of the BCE’s radical changes, given it’s clearly possible to make a map that largely leaves current seats intact? I came up with this as a possible plan:
1. Forest of Dean (71,510). Unchanged. 2. Gloucester (70,451). Gains Longlevens, loses Quedgeley and Kingsway (which is fine - this is very peripheral to the city) and Grange (which is not as fine, but is needed to keep the constituency small and bring the new seat up to size). 3. Cheltenham (71,085). Loses Oakley and Pittville - the latter comes close to the town centre but not as much as St Paul's (which was moved the initial proposals).
4. Tewkesbury (69,866). Loses Longlevens and most of the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham (but not Churchdown St John's, which annoyingly means Churchdown is split). Gains Oakley and Pittville; the four Cheltenham wards form a coherent group and account for a third of the electorate so may deserve mention in the name. 5. Cirencester (72,323). This is the cross boundary seat. Loses most of its western wards, gains Cricklade and Highworth. The current name of "The Cotswolds" could be retained but I'd change it to reflect the fact some non-Cotswold areas (such as Highworth) are included and the likes of Tetbury are excluded. 6. Mid Gloucestershire (71,222). A left-over seat, but a relatively coherent one which takes in the northern parts of Stroud constituency, the Quedgeley area from Gloucester, and suburban areas around Brockworth and Shurdington. I would ideally like to remove Ermin ward from this, which means the seat has parts of four districts, but doing so would require either splitting Stroud and/or Cirencester.
7. Stroud (69,850). Loses most of its northern wards, gains Kemble and points west within the current Cotswolds seat. While this is quite a radical change from the current Stroud seat, it is fairly coherent; all of the Stroud town wards with Stroud in the name are included, and then the areas further south in Gloucestershire which look to Stroud as a local service centre. Kemble is a bit of an ugly protrustion but it isn't the worst fit, especially given the railway line connecting it to Stroud. 8. Swindon North (71,525)
9. Swindon South (75,079). Lots of permutations here - this one keeps West Swindon together but does put Covingham and Dorcan out on a bit of a limb. A neater configuration which puts West Swindon in the North seat and C&D and South Marston in South would have left this seat 41 electors below quota. 10. North Wiltshire (76,571). Loses Cricklade so has to gain Corsham - splitting it from Chippenham is unfortunate, but the alternatives were worse (either splitting a town or putting Marlborough into a North Wilts seat with which it has no connection). 11. Chippenham (72,475). Other than the loss of Corsham, this is basically minimum change. 12. Westbury (75,434). Loses Tisbury and two other rural wards - hence the return to the traditional name reflecting the loss of much of South West Wiltshire. Gains the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West - villages which do fit better with Devizes but also have good links to Trowbridge and/or Westbury. 13. Devizes (75,234). Loses the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West, and gains the town of Amesbury to compensate. 14. Salisbury (74,381). Loses Amesbury and gains Tisbury and other rural areas.
This isn't strictly minimum change in Wiltshire - you could probably keep Amesbury with Salisbury, Tisbury et al with SW Wilts, and the Lavingtons with Devizes, but I couldn't find a solution which did so without splitting towns or massively disrupting Chippenham.
Obviously it's probably too late to submit anything like this, which is quite different from both the initial and revised proposals. But it's still interesting to speculate what could have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 30, 2022 17:38:06 GMT
They didn't do that in Herts/Beds... Didn't do what? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 30, 2022 17:38:57 GMT
Thinking about it, it would have been quite simple to do a seven-seat Gloucestershire that only takes a couple wards from Wiltshire and largely leaves existing seats intact. You just split the Stroud constituency in half, one half takes on the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham while the other half takes the southwestern extremity of the Cotswolds seat on. And give a couple of wards from Wiltshire to Cotswolds to make up the numbers. It would be then very easy to make a least-change map of Wiltshire following on from this. So I have to question the necessity of the BCE’s radical changes, given it’s clearly possible to make a map that largely leaves current seats intact? I came up with this as a possible plan:
1. Forest of Dean (71,510). Unchanged. 2. Gloucester (70,451). Gains Longlevens, loses Quedgeley and Kingsway (which is fine - this is very peripheral to the city) and Grange (which is not as fine, but is needed to keep the constituency small and bring the new seat up to size). 3. Cheltenham (71,085). Loses Oakley and Pittville - the latter comes close to the town centre but not as much as St Paul's (which was moved the initial proposals).
4. Tewkesbury (69,866). Loses Longlevens and most of the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham (but not Churchdown St John's, which annoyingly means Churchdown is split). Gains Oakley and Pittville; the four Cheltenham wards form a coherent group and account for a third of the electorate so may deserve mention in the name. 5. Cirencester (72,323). This is the cross boundary seat. Loses most of its western wards, gains Cricklade and Highworth. The current name of "The Cotswolds" could be retained but I'd change it to reflect the fact some non-Cotswold areas (such as Highworth) are included and the likes of Tetbury are excluded. 6. Mid Gloucestershire (71,222). A left-over seat, but a relatively coherent one which takes in the northern parts of Stroud constituency, the Quedgeley area from Gloucester, and suburban areas around Brockworth and Shurdington. I would ideally like to remove Ermin ward from this, which means the seat has parts of four districts, but doing so would require either splitting Stroud and/or Cirencester.
7. Stroud (69,850). Loses most of its northern wards, gains Kemble and points west within the current Cotswolds seat. While this is quite a radical change from the current Stroud seat, it is fairly coherent; all of the Stroud town wards with Stroud in the name are included, and then the areas further south in Gloucestershire which look to Stroud as a local service centre. Kemble is a bit of an ugly protrustion but it isn't the worst fit, especially given the railway line connecting it to Stroud. 8. Swindon North (71,525)
9. Swindon South (75,079). Lots of permutations here - this one keeps West Swindon together but does put Covingham and Dorcan out on a bit of a limb. A neater configuration which puts West Swindon in the North seat and C&D and South Marston in South would have left this seat 41 electors below quota. 10. North Wiltshire (76,571). Loses Cricklade so has to gain Corsham - splitting it from Chippenham is unfortunate, but the alternatives were worse (either splitting a town or putting Marlborough into a North Wilts seat with which it has no connection). 11. Chippenham (72,475). Other than the loss of Corsham, this is basically minimum change. 12. Westbury (75,434). Loses Tisbury and two other rural wards - hence the return to the traditional name reflecting the loss of much of South West Wiltshire. Gains the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West - villages which do fit better with Devizes but also have good links to Trowbridge and/or Westbury. 13. Devizes (75,234). Loses the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West, and gains the town of Amesbury to compensate. 14. Salisbury (74,381). Loses Amesbury and gains Tisbury and other rural areas.
This isn't strictly minimum change in Wiltshire - you could probably keep Amesbury with Salisbury, Tisbury et al with SW Wilts, and the Lavingtons with Devizes, but I couldn't find a solution which did so without splitting towns or massively disrupting Chippenham.
Obviously it's probably too late to submit anything like this, which is quite different from both the initial and revised proposals. But it's still interesting to speculate what could have been.
As a resident of Stroud, I would like to point out that I actually own and regularly use a pitchfork. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 30, 2022 18:14:29 GMT
They didn't do that in Herts/Beds... Didn't do what? ignore. Not only did I misread you, the Bedfordshire portion of the new Hitchin seat is much larger than I thought at first glance. Fooled by the huge electorates of those wards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2022 19:40:22 GMT
Thinking about it, it would have been quite simple to do a seven-seat Gloucestershire that only takes a couple wards from Wiltshire and largely leaves existing seats intact. You just split the Stroud constituency in half, one half takes on the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham while the other half takes the southwestern extremity of the Cotswolds seat on. And give a couple of wards from Wiltshire to Cotswolds to make up the numbers. It would be then very easy to make a least-change map of Wiltshire following on from this. So I have to question the necessity of the BCE’s radical changes, given it’s clearly possible to make a map that largely leaves current seats intact? I came up with this as a possible plan:
1. Forest of Dean (71,510). Unchanged. 2. Gloucester (70,451). Gains Longlevens, loses Quedgeley and Kingsway (which is fine - this is very peripheral to the city) and Grange (which is not as fine, but is needed to keep the constituency small and bring the new seat up to size). 3. Cheltenham (71,085). Loses Oakley and Pittville - the latter comes close to the town centre but not as much as St Paul's (which was moved the initial proposals).
4. Tewkesbury (69,866). Loses Longlevens and most of the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham (but not Churchdown St John's, which annoyingly means Churchdown is split). Gains Oakley and Pittville; the four Cheltenham wards form a coherent group and account for a third of the electorate so may deserve mention in the name. 5. Cirencester (72,323). This is the cross boundary seat. Loses most of its western wards, gains Cricklade and Highworth. The current name of "The Cotswolds" could be retained but I'd change it to reflect the fact some non-Cotswold areas (such as Highworth) are included and the likes of Tetbury are excluded. 6. Mid Gloucestershire (71,222). A left-over seat, but a relatively coherent one which takes in the northern parts of Stroud constituency, the Quedgeley area from Gloucester, and suburban areas around Brockworth and Shurdington. I would ideally like to remove Ermin ward from this, which means the seat has parts of four districts, but doing so would require either splitting Stroud and/or Cirencester.
7. Stroud (69,850). Loses most of its northern wards, gains Kemble and points west within the current Cotswolds seat. While this is quite a radical change from the current Stroud seat, it is fairly coherent; all of the Stroud town wards with Stroud in the name are included, and then the areas further south in Gloucestershire which look to Stroud as a local service centre. Kemble is a bit of an ugly protrustion but it isn't the worst fit, especially given the railway line connecting it to Stroud. 8. Swindon North (71,525)
9. Swindon South (75,079). Lots of permutations here - this one keeps West Swindon together but does put Covingham and Dorcan out on a bit of a limb. A neater configuration which puts West Swindon in the North seat and C&D and South Marston in South would have left this seat 41 electors below quota. 10. North Wiltshire (76,571). Loses Cricklade so has to gain Corsham - splitting it from Chippenham is unfortunate, but the alternatives were worse (either splitting a town or putting Marlborough into a North Wilts seat with which it has no connection). 11. Chippenham (72,475). Other than the loss of Corsham, this is basically minimum change. 12. Westbury (75,434). Loses Tisbury and two other rural wards - hence the return to the traditional name reflecting the loss of much of South West Wiltshire. Gains the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West - villages which do fit better with Devizes but also have good links to Trowbridge and/or Westbury. 13. Devizes (75,234). Loses the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West, and gains the town of Amesbury to compensate. 14. Salisbury (74,381). Loses Amesbury and gains Tisbury and other rural areas.
This isn't strictly minimum change in Wiltshire - you could probably keep Amesbury with Salisbury, Tisbury et al with SW Wilts, and the Lavingtons with Devizes, but I couldn't find a solution which did so without splitting towns or massively disrupting Chippenham.
Obviously it's probably too late to submit anything like this, which is quite different from both the initial and revised proposals. But it's still interesting to speculate what could have been.
It would be received well in Cam and Dursley which at the end of the day is all that really matters! But in all seriousness, no. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 30, 2022 19:59:07 GMT
I came up with this as a possible plan:
1. Forest of Dean (71,510). Unchanged. 2. Gloucester (70,451). Gains Longlevens, loses Quedgeley and Kingsway (which is fine - this is very peripheral to the city) and Grange (which is not as fine, but is needed to keep the constituency small and bring the new seat up to size). 3. Cheltenham (71,085). Loses Oakley and Pittville - the latter comes close to the town centre but not as much as St Paul's (which was moved the initial proposals).
4. Tewkesbury (69,866). Loses Longlevens and most of the wards between Gloucester and Cheltenham (but not Churchdown St John's, which annoyingly means Churchdown is split). Gains Oakley and Pittville; the four Cheltenham wards form a coherent group and account for a third of the electorate so may deserve mention in the name. 5. Cirencester (72,323). This is the cross boundary seat. Loses most of its western wards, gains Cricklade and Highworth. The current name of "The Cotswolds" could be retained but I'd change it to reflect the fact some non-Cotswold areas (such as Highworth) are included and the likes of Tetbury are excluded. 6. Mid Gloucestershire (71,222). A left-over seat, but a relatively coherent one which takes in the northern parts of Stroud constituency, the Quedgeley area from Gloucester, and suburban areas around Brockworth and Shurdington. I would ideally like to remove Ermin ward from this, which means the seat has parts of four districts, but doing so would require either splitting Stroud and/or Cirencester.
7. Stroud (69,850). Loses most of its northern wards, gains Kemble and points west within the current Cotswolds seat. While this is quite a radical change from the current Stroud seat, it is fairly coherent; all of the Stroud town wards with Stroud in the name are included, and then the areas further south in Gloucestershire which look to Stroud as a local service centre. Kemble is a bit of an ugly protrustion but it isn't the worst fit, especially given the railway line connecting it to Stroud. 8. Swindon North (71,525)
9. Swindon South (75,079). Lots of permutations here - this one keeps West Swindon together but does put Covingham and Dorcan out on a bit of a limb. A neater configuration which puts West Swindon in the North seat and C&D and South Marston in South would have left this seat 41 electors below quota. 10. North Wiltshire (76,571). Loses Cricklade so has to gain Corsham - splitting it from Chippenham is unfortunate, but the alternatives were worse (either splitting a town or putting Marlborough into a North Wilts seat with which it has no connection). 11. Chippenham (72,475). Other than the loss of Corsham, this is basically minimum change. 12. Westbury (75,434). Loses Tisbury and two other rural wards - hence the return to the traditional name reflecting the loss of much of South West Wiltshire. Gains the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West - villages which do fit better with Devizes but also have good links to Trowbridge and/or Westbury. 13. Devizes (75,234). Loses the Lavingtons and Devizes Rural West, and gains the town of Amesbury to compensate. 14. Salisbury (74,381). Loses Amesbury and gains Tisbury and other rural areas.
This isn't strictly minimum change in Wiltshire - you could probably keep Amesbury with Salisbury, Tisbury et al with SW Wilts, and the Lavingtons with Devizes, but I couldn't find a solution which did so without splitting towns or massively disrupting Chippenham.
Obviously it's probably too late to submit anything like this, which is quite different from both the initial and revised proposals. But it's still interesting to speculate what could have been.
It would be received well in Cam and Dursley which at the end of the day is all that really matters! But in all seriousness, no. It does go to show that sometimes you can improve a map a fair bit if you're willing to just ruin one specific part of it (in this case Stroud). But I wasn't seriously suggesting that as a workable plan - merely a thought experiment and riffing off a suggestion in the thread! |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,455 
|
Post by iain on Nov 30, 2022 20:01:49 GMT
It would be received well in Cam and Dursley which at the end of the day is all that really matters! But in all seriousness, no. It does go to show that sometimes you can improve a map a fair bit if you're willing to just ruin one specific part of it (in this case Stroud). But I wasn't seriously suggesting that as a workable plan - merely a thought experiment and riffing off a suggestion in the thread! Hideous for Cheltenham too |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 30, 2022 20:09:56 GMT
It does go to show that sometimes you can improve a map a fair bit if you're willing to just ruin one specific part of it (in this case Stroud). But I wasn't seriously suggesting that as a workable plan - merely a thought experiment and riffing off a suggestion in the thread! Hideous for Cheltenham too A phrase that should go into the language.
"It wasn't good for us"
"Hideous for Cheltenham too".
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,075
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 1, 2022 13:25:58 GMT
It does go to show that sometimes you can improve a map a fair bit if you're willing to just ruin one specific part of it (in this case Stroud). But I wasn't seriously suggesting that as a workable plan - merely a thought experiment and riffing off a suggestion in the thread! Hideous for Cheltenham too Churchdown being split is a bit of a monstrosity as well. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,114
|
Post by ilerda on Dec 1, 2022 13:48:10 GMT
I've always wondered why they don't split Charlton Kings off from Cheltenham instead of the northern fringes. It seems like a more distinct locality, and was its own urban district pre 1974.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,455
|
Post by iain on Dec 1, 2022 17:05:09 GMT
I've always wondered why they don't split Charlton Kings off from Cheltenham instead of the northern fringes. It seems like a more distinct locality, and was its own urban district pre 1974. To a point. Prestbury and Swindon Village are clearly the obvious places to remove, but they're no longer enough - and for Swindon Village it's only really the parished area that makes sense; the bottom of the ward is very clearly a part of Cheltenham. If you have to remove three wards then Charlton Kings isn't a bad shout, but you run into the same problem with ward boundaries. Areas of Battledown and Charlton Park are not in Charlton Kings, and the parish boundary in the west is a bit random really. The other alternative would be taking Warden Hill / Up Hatherley / Benhall, which do form a coherent unit. Basically, Cheltenham is just an awkward size at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 2, 2022 15:31:14 GMT
I don't think it's worth a ward split, even if it would work. I can't see an easy solution involving just the Melksham and Chippenham seats. The seats are on the small side so there's limited room for manoeuvre.
If you throw S Cotswold in as well, this is possible and not too bad:
Even if the revised scheme is adopted, I want the 'Melksham & Devizes' seat renamed simply 'Devizes'. There has been a constituency of this name, without a break, since 1295. Such hallowed tradition should not lightly be cast aside.
Edited to add: Sorry, I failed to shade in the Kingswood ward of Stroud but I meant that to remain in S Cotsworld. The numbers are: S Cotswold 73370, Chippenham 72078, Devizes 70888.
Right, I've put this in. BCE-111330. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 28, 2023 11:57:38 GMT
Final Report
Bruton moved Frome -> Glastonbury and Somerton
The Pennards and Ditcheat moved Glastonbury and Somerton -> Frome (renamed to Frome and East Somerset)
Chalk Valleys moved North Dorset -> West Dorset
Upwey and Broadwey moved West Dorset -> South Dorset
West Purbeck split between South Dorset and Mid Dorset and North Poole (new split)
2 renamings
Exeter East and Exmouth -> Exmouth and Exeter East
Taunton -> Taunton and Wellington
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 28, 2023 12:21:43 GMT
Clearly no Commissioners are familiar with this region at all. The initial proposals were obviously 'minimum effort' and none of the big 'easy win' changes were made at the revised stage.
They've kept Tiverton & Minehead. I realise the Tories had already selected Ian Liddell-Grainger to fight it so they were clearly not expecting any major alterations at this phase of the Review... but still, come on! There are no statutory criteria for cross-county constituencies, but that one flies in the face of common sense. If you don't know the county borders then it actually looks neat on the map. Sadly it has poor internal connectivity and community links. Didn't need to exist this time (Devon can stand alone for 13 seats, the Somerset UA for 6) and probably won't survive the next review. Plus it doesn't even unite Exmoor which still has a large chunk of it in North Devon. Worst of all worlds.
Frome is very much on the eastern edge of Somerset, so there's no need for the addition of the compass direction there. 'Taunton & Wellington' is certainly unnecessary but makes sense to me, though it might confuse people who are more familiar with Wellington in Shropshire. It's similar to the former borough of Taunton Deane, so the name could be a reflection of the fact that the district council has been abolished.
I prefer the previous name for the Exmouth seat even though it's where my grandparents met and got married, so you'd think I'd be happy that it's now mentioned first. But there are precedents when it comes to nomenclature which should be abided.
There are two possible neat maps for Dorset: one involves minimal change, the other 4 seats each for the Dorset UA and 4 for BCP. Neither involves a split ward or division. Utterly baffling move there.
Wells now contains an even shorter stretch of coast which is further away from the city itself. Couldn't it just have reverted to being a landlocked seat?
Complete afterthought here then. Perhaps there's a case for not asking the Commission to Review all 9 regions simultaneously? Things really do get lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 28, 2023 15:13:43 GMT
The random spike into Calne town centre survived!?
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by nyx on Jun 28, 2023 21:18:20 GMT
Names which I would have chosen differently:
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport -> Plymouth South
Plymouth Moor View -> Plymouth North
Torridge and Tavistock -> West Devon
Honiton and Sidmouth -> Honiton
Wells and Mendip Hills -> Wells
Taunton and Wellington -> Taunton
Glastonbury and Somerton -> Somerton
Frome and East Somerset -> Frome
North East Somerset and Hanham -> Keynsham
Melksham and Devizes -> Devizes
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 28, 2023 22:34:46 GMT
Names which I would have chosen differently: Plymouth Sutton and Devonport -> Plymouth South Plymouth Moor View -> Plymouth North Torridge and Tavistock -> West Devon Honiton and Sidmouth -> Honiton Wells and Mendip Hills -> Wells Taunton and Wellington -> Taunton Glastonbury and Somerton -> Somerton Frome and East Somerset -> Frome North East Somerset and Hanham -> Keynsham Melksham and Devizes -> Devizes Spot on with every one of them. |
|
