|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 9:49:54 GMT
Here's Devon as promised.
A lot of this is identical with what's been posted before - not surprisingly, in view of the constraints - and in particular I'd like to acknowledge my debt to YL's plan posted on 7 Jan. But I prefer this layout for C Devon, which keeps it east of Dartmoor and allows the W Devon seat to be maintained almost as is, subject only to the loss of four wards.
Exeter - 71713. The current seat must lose a ward. It could be Priory, but I've taken Pinhoe on the grounds that it's further from the city centre.
Exmouth - 70022. Really the successor to the current ill-named E Devon seat.
East Devon - 70318. Despite the name, this is best regarded as the new seat. It could be called Honiton if preferred. Tiverton - 70310. The whole of Mid Devon district plus three wards from N Devon and one from Torridge.
North Devon - 70895. The existing seat is within range and coterminous with its district and in normal circumstances would have been left alone, but it has to surrender three wards to make up the numbers in Tiverton.
Central Devon - 70808. Compared with the existing seat, it loses all its wards in E Devon and Mid Devon districts (so there is now, remarkably, no overlap at all between Mid Devon district and C Devon constituency) but extends into S Hams as far as Ivybridge.
West Devon - 70019. As mentioned, very similar to the current T&WD seat, losing only Winkleigh ward to Tiverton and three wards in the south to SW Devon.
South West Devon - 72665. Despite the name, Plymouth Moor View contributes more than two-thirds of the electors. Plymouth Devonport - 70326. Plymouth Sutton - 70735. Huge thanks to YL for this arrangement of Plymouth seats.
Totnes - 71026.
Torquay - 69783. The ill-treatment of Paignton seems unavoidable.
Newton Abbot - 70834.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 10:02:42 GMT
We probably have several open here in Bath. Certainly the one most local to me, on our local shopping street, has been open since the first lockdown finished, and always has a long queue on the pavement waiting to give them their custom. I work in an hardware store and it's busier than usual ever since the whole thing began, by quite a margin. Since the 2023 Review began? I didn't think they would care so much in Quebec (I could imagine in Halifax, NS there could be a run on pitchforks out of solidarity with their namesake in Yorkshire) |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 18, 2021 10:32:37 GMT
We probably have several open here in Bath. Certainly the one most local to me, on our local shopping street, has been open since the first lockdown finished, and always has a long queue on the pavement waiting to give them their custom. I work in an hardware store and it's busier than usual ever since the whole thing began, by quite a margin. Do you ever get requests for fork handles? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 14:51:13 GMT
Given that to the east of the city, Kingswood does not require substantial changes, I suggest that Filton represents the logical addition to make up the numbers for a fifth Bristol seat. Here's a compass-point plan on that basis.
 Central - 69915 (The successor of West)
South - 74856 East - 74976 West - 77028 (The successor of North West) North and Filton - 74179
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 18, 2021 15:01:58 GMT
Given that to the east of the city, Kingswood does not require substantial changes, I suggest that Filton represents the logical addition to make up the numbers for a fifth Bristol seat. Here's a compass-point plan on that basis.
Central - 69915 (The successor of West)
South - 74856 East - 74976 West - 77028 (The successor of North West) North and Filton - 74179
I don't see the logic of that at all. If Kingswood is a cohesive urban area that deserves to be kept together as much as numbers allow (and parking for the moment the idea that just adding Boyd Valley to it doesn't do that), why don't similar considerations apply to Bradley Stoke and Stoke Gifford? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 15:06:55 GMT
And Somerset. This is on the assumption that the Somerset-Wiltshire border needn't be crossed. I'm not unhappy with this.
West Somerset - 75613. Very tight around Bridgwater. Taunton - 76049 Yeovil - 73946. Or S Somerset if you like compass-points. Somerton and Glastonbury - 71918. Or Mid Somerset. Effectively the new seat. Frome - 74459. Or E Somerset would be an entirely reasonable name in this configuration. Wells - 73283. Weston super Mare - 70722. North Somerset - 70267. North East Somerset - 71802. Unfortunately this had to grab an orphan ward from N Somerset UA. Bath - 73241.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 15:15:49 GMT
Given that to the east of the city, Kingswood does not require substantial changes, I suggest that Filton represents the logical addition to make up the numbers for a fifth Bristol seat. Here's a compass-point plan on that basis.
Central - 69915 (The successor of West)
South - 74856 East - 74976 West - 77028 (The successor of North West) North and Filton - 74179
I don't see the logic of that at all. If Kingswood is a cohesive urban area that deserves to be kept together as much as numbers allow (and parking for the moment the idea that just adding Boyd Valley to it doesn't do that), why don't similar considerations apply to Bradley Stoke and Stoke Gifford? KIngswood has existed as a constituency since 1974 and was a separate district before S Glos UA was formed.
Don't these things give it some entitlement to consideration?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jan 18, 2021 15:21:35 GMT
And Somerset. This is on the assumption that the Somerset-Wiltshire border needn't be crossed. I'm not unhappy with this.
West Somerset - 75613. Very tight around Bridgwater. Taunton - 76049 Yeovil - 73946. Or S Somerset if you like compass-points. Somerton and Glastonbury - 71918. Or Mid Somerset. Effectively the new seat. Frome - 74459. Or E Somerset would be an entirely reasonable name in this configuration. Wells - 73283. Weston super Mare - 70722. North Somerset - 70267. North East Somerset - 71802. Unfortunately this had to grab an orphan ward from N Somerset UA. Bath - 73241.
As with all Somerset plans, and as you say, your Bridgwater seat is very tight around the town and excludes part of the Town in North Petherton ward. I imagine that will cause some ripples - ‘part of town no longer in Bridgwater constituency’ . It seems to come down to a binary choice between your option or putting the villages to the East of Taunton in Mid Somerset and taking the boundary up to the edge of Taunton, both are not great outcomes, |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 18, 2021 15:25:10 GMT
I don't see the logic of that at all. If Kingswood is a cohesive urban area that deserves to be kept together as much as numbers allow (and parking for the moment the idea that just adding Boyd Valley to it doesn't do that), why don't similar considerations apply to Bradley Stoke and Stoke Gifford? KIngswood has existed as a constituency since 1974 and was a separate district before S Glos UA was formed. Don't these things give it some entitlement to consideration?
Yes, but nobody else's map has torn up Kingswood - all they've done is assign Staple Hill & Mangotsfield to another constituency, which is already the case for a majority of electors in that ward. The argument that this is worse than separating Bradley Stoke from Stoke Gifford is not a convincing one. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Jan 18, 2021 16:39:43 GMT
I work in an hardware store and it's busier than usual ever since the whole thing began, by quite a margin. Since the 2023 Review began? I didn't think they would care so much in Quebec (I could imagine in Halifax, NS there could be a run on pitchforks out of solidarity with their namesake in Yorkshire) The whole COVID thing, alas. I work in an hardware store and it's busier than usual ever since the whole thing began, by quite a margin. Do you ever get requests for fork handles? I don't think they specifically exist, but we have range of metal and wooden handles of various lenghts that could be attached to a folk. I would doubt it happens often, through, the farming industry is quite small in my area and the farmers coop owns a competing chain. We do not carry farming supplies, including pitchfolks, but we do sell smaller gardening forks (the ones for making holes in the ground). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 17:08:58 GMT
KIngswood has existed as a constituency since 1974 and was a separate district before S Glos UA was formed. Don't these things give it some entitlement to consideration?
Yes, but nobody else's map has torn up Kingswood - all they've done is assign Staple Hill & Mangotsfield to another constituency, which is already the case for a majority of electors in that ward. The argument that this is worse than separating Bradley Stoke from Stoke Gifford is not a convincing one. Well, I wanted to cross the city boundary only once, which means, with Bristol's 4.57 entitlement, finding about 30,000 electors to add. Taking them from Kingswood would completely disrupt a seat that has existed under its present name, and in more or less its present form, for nearly fifty years; so on balance it seemed less damaging to disrupt F&BS instead. It would be possible for my Bristol N and Yate seats to exchange Stoke Gifford and Frenchay wards, thus uniting Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke; but it leaves Bristol N awkwardly shaped and doesn't look like an improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 18, 2021 17:28:31 GMT
Yes, but nobody else's map has torn up Kingswood - all they've done is assign Staple Hill & Mangotsfield to another constituency, which is already the case for a majority of electors in that ward. The argument that this is worse than separating Bradley Stoke from Stoke Gifford is not a convincing one. Well, I wanted to cross the city boundary only once, which means, with Bristol's 4.57 entitlement, finding about 30,000 electors to add. Taking them from Kingswood would completely disrupt a seat that has existed under its present name, and in more or less its present form, for nearly fifty years; so on balance it seemed less damaging to disrupt F&BS instead. It would be possible for my Bristol N and Yate seats to exchange Stoke Gifford and Frenchay wards, thus uniting Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke; but it leaves Bristol N awkwardly shaped and doesn't look like an improvement. If you only want one crossing, how about this: Bristol S 74969 - loses Knowle Bristol SE 75936- loses Eastville, Frome Vale, Hillfields, gains Lawrence Hill and Easton Bristol W 70227 - loses Lawrence Hill, Easton and Bishopston Bristol NW 76783 - loses Lockleaze, gains Bishopston Bristol NE 71827 - the rest of the city, plus Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill Plenty of other combinations of five seats exist using those wards without having to tear up the Bradley Stoke area. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 17:39:48 GMT
Finally (for today), Dorset and BCP.
Dorset
North Dorset - 75906. East Dorset - 76761. South Dorset - 70505. Weymouth and Dorchester - 76540. This looks weird, I know, but I wanted to post it because it keeps the whole Weymouth area together and it allows a very tidy-looking division between N and S Dorset. But is it too strange-looking to be acceptable?
BCP
Poole - 70323. Bournemouth North and Broadstone - 69808. Bournemouth South - 72403. This keeps the two Boscombe wards together, unlike some other plans.
Christchurch - 75225.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 18, 2021 17:59:04 GMT
Bristol S 74969 - loses Knowle Bristol SE 75936- loses Eastville, Frome Vale, Hillfields, gains Lawrence Hill and Easton Bristol W 70227 - loses Lawrence Hill, Easton and Bishopston Bristol NW 76783 - loses Lockleaze, gains Bishopston Bristol NE 71827 - the rest of the city, plus Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill I like this: it gives the boundaries I previously had in Bristol itself (which I was pretty happy with) combined with only one crossing in a way which isn't particularly disruptive in the South Gloucestershire suburbs. It leaves you with a few options for the rest of South Gloucestershire. I'm minded to put most of the less suburbanised wards in the cross-border seat with the Gloucestershire CC area and have a more suburban seat uniting Bradley Stoke with Yate, but that does have the disadvantage of separating Yate and Sodding Chipbury. You could also have a Thornbury/Bradley Stoke link and Yate in the cross-border seat. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 18:20:01 GMT
Yes, I don't mind it either (once I'd recovered from the shock of learning that anyone cares so deeply about Bradley Stoke).
Moving north, it led me to put the remaining bits of F&BS with Frampton Cotterell and everything else up the the boundary of Glos proper into a Thornbury seat (75711), with Boyd Valley of course going into Kingswood (71994) and Yate x 3 plus Chipping Sodbury, the southern wards of Stroud district and the Tetbury area into - well, I don't know what to call it, Tetbury and Yate are probably the best-known places within its borders - with 74251.
Or you could put the 5-ward Bradley Stoke area we're trying to keep together in a seat with Yate (but unfortunately not Chipping Sodbury) - 73355; which leaves the remaining areas to form a seat I'm just going to call S Glos (76607).
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 18, 2021 19:15:33 GMT
My plan for Bristol and Gloucestershire (similar to my plan under the December 2019 electorate figures):
1. Bristol West (70,227). Loses Bishopston & Ashley Down, Easton, and Lawrence Hill wards.
2. Bristol South West (74,153). Succeeds Bristol South. Loses Windmill Hill ward.
3. Bristol South East (76,479). Succeeds Bristol East. Gains Easton, Lawrence Hill, and Windmill Hill wards, loses Eastville, Frome Vale and Hillfields wards.
4. Bristol North West (76,783). Gains Bishopston & Ashley Down ward, loses Lockleaze ward.
5. Eastville & Kingswood (69,793). Succeeds Kingswood in practice. Gains Eastville, Frome Vale, Hillfields and Lockleaze wards in Bristol (and the part of Staple Hill & Mangotsfield ward currently in Filton & Bradley Stoke), loses Bitton & Oldland Common, Emersons Green, Hanham, Longwell Green, and Parkwall & Warmley wards in South Gloucestershire.
6. Filton & Bradley Stoke (73,598). Loses Pilning & Severn Beach ward and the part of Staple Hill & Mangotsfield ward in Filton & Bradley Stoke, gains Emersons Green ward.
7. Yate (71,317). Succeeds Thornbury & Yate in practice. Loses Charfield, Frampton Cotterell, Severn Vale, and Thornbury wards, gains Bitton & Oldland Common, Hanham, Longwell Green, and Parkwall & Warmley wards.
8. Thornbury (76,913). New seat. Contains the South Gloucestershire wards of Charfield, Frampton Cotterell, Pilning & Severn Beach, Severn Vale, and Thornbury, the Cotswolds wards of Grumbolds Ash with Avening and Tetbury (all), and the Stroud wards of Berkeley Vale, Cam East, Cam West, Coaley & Uley, Dursley, Kingswood, Nailsworth, and Wootton-under-Edge.
9. Stroud & Quedgeley (75,766). Succeeds Stroud. Loses the Stroud wards of Berkeley Vale, Cam East, Cam West, Coaley & Uley, Dursley, and Nailsworth, and gains the Stroud ward of Minchinhampton and the Gloucester wards of Kingsway, Quedgeley Fiedlcourt, and Quedgeley Severn Vale.
10. Gloucester (75,488). Loses Kingsway and both Quedgeley wards, gains Longlevens ward.
11. Forest of Dean (71,510). Unchanged.
12. Tewkesbury & Cheltenham North (72,538). Succeeds Tewkesbury. Loses the Gloucester ward of Longlevens and the Tewkesbury wards of Ishbourne and Winchcombe, and gains the Cheltenham ward of Pittville.
13. Cheltenham South (75,255). Succeeds Cheltenham. Loses Pittville.
14. Cirencester (72,223). Succeeds The Cotswolds. Contains all Cotswolds wards except for Grumbolds Ash with Avening and Tetbury (all) and the Tewkesbury wards of Ishbourne and Winchcombe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 19:50:32 GMT
It's getting hard to keep track if somebody else has already posted this scheme (or if I have myself). Usual consensus in the rest of Gloucestershire  Edit: I've just noticed how cut off Frome Vale is from the rest of that Bristol North seat (always worth checking the satellite images). Move Frome Vale to East (75,345), Easton to Central (71,017), Bishopston & Ashley Down to North (74,325) |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 18, 2021 21:07:53 GMT
It's getting hard to keep track if somebody else has already posted this scheme (or if I have myself). Usual consensus in the rest of Gloucestershire Edit: I've just noticed how cut off Frome Vale is from the rest of that Bristol North seat (always worth checking the satellite images). Move Frome Vale to East (75,345), Easton to Central (71,017), Bishopston & Ashley Down to North (74,325) A blatant pro-Labour gerrymander if I ever saw one regarding Bristol. Clifton certainly does not belong in Bristol North West or any successor thereof; it is an integral area of Bristol West. Also, Filton & Bradley Stoke's successor in this plan has three solidly Labour city of Bristol wards, when it has already been shown that Filton & Bradley Stoke can be kept broadly as is (i.e. it can still be called Filton & Bradley Stoke despite losing an outlying ward or two) without having to take any part of Bristol itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 21:21:31 GMT
A blatant pro-Labour gerrymander if I ever saw one regarding Bristol. Erm.. My plan for Bristol and Gloucestershire (similar to my plan under the December 2019 electorate figures): 1. Bristol West (70,227). Loses Bishopston & Ashley Down, Easton, and Lawrence Hill wards. 2. Bristol South West (74,153). Succeeds Bristol South. Loses Windmill Hill ward. 3. Bristol South East (76,479). Succeeds Bristol East. Gains Easton, Lawrence Hill, and Windmill Hill wards, loses Eastville, Frome Vale and Hillfields wards. 4. Bristol North West (76,783). Gains Bishopston & Ashley Down ward, loses Lockleaze ward. 5. Eastville & Kingswood (69,793). Succeeds Kingswood in practice. Gains Eastville, Frome Vale, Hillfields and Lockleaze wards in Bristol (and the part of Staple Hill & Mangotsfield ward currently in Filton & Bradley Stoke), loses Bitton & Oldland Common, Emersons Green, Hanham, Longwell Green, and Parkwall & Warmley wards in South Gloucestershire.6. Filton & Bradley Stoke (73,598). Loses Pilning & Severn Beach ward and the part of Staple Hill & Mangotsfield ward in Filton & Bradley Stoke, gains Emersons Green ward. 7. Yate (71,317). Succeeds Thornbury & Yate in practice. Loses Charfield, Frampton Cotterell, Severn Vale, and Thornbury wards, gains Bitton & Oldland Common, Hanham, Longwell Green, and Parkwall & Warmley wards. 8. Thornbury (76,913). New seat. Contains the South Gloucestershire wards of Charfield, Frampton Cotterell, Pilning & Severn Beach, Severn Vale, and Thornbury, the Cotswolds wards of Grumbolds Ash with Avening and Tetbury (all), and the Stroud wards of Berkeley Vale, Cam East, Cam West, Coaley & Uley, Dursley, Kingswood, Nailsworth, and Wootton-under-Edge. 9. Stroud & Quedgeley (75,766). Succeeds Stroud. Loses the Stroud wards of Berkeley Vale, Cam East, Cam West, Coaley & Uley, Dursley, and Nailsworth, and gains the Stroud ward of Minchinhampton and the Gloucester wards of Kingsway, Quedgeley Fiedlcourt, and Quedgeley Severn Vale. 10. Gloucester (75,488). Loses Kingsway and both Quedgeley wards, gains Longlevens ward. 11. Forest of Dean (71,510). Unchanged. 12. Tewkesbury & Cheltenham North (72,538). Succeeds Tewkesbury. Loses the Gloucester ward of Longlevens and the Tewkesbury wards of Ishbourne and Winchcombe, and gains the Cheltenham ward of Pittville. 13. Cheltenham South (75,255). Succeeds Cheltenham. Loses Pittville. 14. Cirencester (72,223). Succeeds The Cotswolds. Contains all Cotswolds wards except for Grumbolds Ash with Avening and Tetbury (all) and the Tewkesbury wards of Ishbourne and Winchcombe. Whereas your 'gerrymandered' 'successor to Kingswood' has four solid Labour wards from Bristol added (and actually loses most of its original territory). But yeah - I can't help myself. I'm well known on here for my blind partisan loyalty to the Labour party. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Jan 18, 2021 21:25:55 GMT
It's getting hard to keep track if somebody else has already posted this scheme (or if I have myself). Usual consensus in the rest of Gloucestershire Edit: I've just noticed how cut off Frome Vale is from the rest of that Bristol North seat (always worth checking the satellite images). Move Frome Vale to East (75,345), Easton to Central (71,017), Bishopston & Ashley Down to North (74,325) A blatant pro-Labour gerrymander if I ever saw one regarding Bristol. Clifton certainly does not belong in Bristol North West or any successor thereof; it is an integral area of Bristol West. Also, Filton & Bradley Stoke's successor in this plan has three solidly Labour city of Bristol wards, when it has already been shown that Filton & Bradley Stoke can be kept broadly as is (i.e. it can still be called Filton & Bradley Stoke despite losing an outlying ward or two) without having to take any part of Bristol itself. Again, Bristol is entitled to 4.5 seats, so either Kingswood or Filton have to be added to Bristol. It so happens that taking Kingswood results in a wierd result for Yate. |
|
