|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 21:34:41 GMT
I wonder if greenhert could estimate for me how many notional Labour seats there would be in the Bristol area on his plan compared with mine |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 18, 2021 21:41:48 GMT
Indeed. Which one do you believe will the BCE pick to give Bristol a fifth seat (or something approximating a fifth seat for Bristol)?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 18, 2021 21:43:36 GMT
I wonder if greenhert could estimate for me how many notional Labour seats there would be in the Bristol area on his plan compared with mine Discounting Thornbury (containing parts of both South Gloucestershire and the county of Gloucestershire), five of the seven seats in Bristol/South Gloucestershire would be notionally Labour; Filton & Bradley Stoke and Yate would be the only notionally Conservative seats in my plan. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 22:05:48 GMT
I wonder if greenhert could estimate for me how many notional Labour seats there would be in the Bristol area on his plan compared with mine Discounting Thornbury (containing parts of both South Gloucestershire and the county of Gloucestershire), five of the seven seats in Bristol/South Gloucestershire would be notionally Labour; Filton & Bradley Stoke and Yate would be the only notionally Conservative seats in my plan. Same as my blatantly pro-Labour gerrymander then |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,142 
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 19, 2021 4:28:07 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. The Taunton and Somerset East constituencies are very neat, but your Wells now contains wards from 3 local authorities rather than two and again separates Backwell from Nailsea. The new Mid Somerset also covers bits of 3 districts when this is avoidable and, as has been stated, cuts off Bridgwater from North Petherton. Some of the villages east of Weston-super-Mare do have good links with the existing Wells seat, but that argument becomes weaker the further north you go. Frustratingly, I did run into the same problem as you with Somerset North East. Here's my plan which sees 6 seats entirely within one council area, 4 that cover two authorities and zero that take in three. On the other hand, North Somerset UA ends up split across 4 seats instead of the current 2: SOMERSET less Ashton Vale Taunton West & Minehead (70,188) Entirely inside the new district. Covers the whole of the former West Somerset, plus the Wellington area. Taunton East & Somerton (72,225) The rest of Taunton Deane, joined by 6 South Somerset wards currently in Somerton and Frome, alongside 2 currently in the Yeovil seat. Yeovil (71,636) Loses Ilminster and Neroche at one end, and Ivelchester at the other. Wincanton & Frome (69,751) Gains Ivelchester, loses 6 wards to Taunton East. Wells (70,352) Gains the Poldens, loses its access to the coast. Bridgwater (71,418) Orientates away from Exmoor and instead pivots northward, better reflecting local transport, services and shopping links. Loses all of the ex-district of West Somerset, gains the three Burnham and Highbridge wards plus Berrow. The totality of the constituency is now located within the Sedgemoor district. Weston-super-Mare (76,611) Loses the bare minimum of two wards to get it into quota, including Congresbury. Portishead & Clevedon (73,950) Or still called Somerset North, if you prefer. Loses Winford and Wrington to the Keynsham seat, and one further ward to Bristol South West. Takes on the two wards shed by Weston-super-Mare. Keynsham & Norton (75,153) Alternatively still Somerset NE. Loses Bathavon North, gains Winford and Wrington. Bath (73,241) Gains Bathavon North ward. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 7:38:48 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. I think the best bet then would be iain 's plan which was posted near the beginning of the thread but with the EAL plan for Bristol  I had wanted to put Thornbury in the 'cross-county' seat but for the reason you state that is less than ideal |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 19, 2021 7:53:53 GMT
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. I think the best bet then would be iain 's plan which was posted near the beginning of the thread but with the EAL plan for Bristol I had wanted to put Thornbury in the 'cross-county' seat but for the reason you state that is less than ideal I think I still prefer putting Yate with Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury in the seat with Dursley and Tetbury, in spite of the Chipping Sodbury issue, but it's a close run thing. I think Nailsworth should be kept in Stroud, with Severn ward going the other way; the shapes look worse but I think Nailsworth is a part of the core Stroud area in a way which Severn isn't. You can do that whichever decision you make regarding Yate and Thornbury. The other question is what to take out of Cheltenham; I don't care very much but my bias (in a case like this where there aren't enough peripheral areas which aren't really part of the town) is always to try to take out a coherent group of wards rather than separate nibbles. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 19, 2021 8:21:16 GMT
Regarding Somerset, how bad is it to have a "West Somerset" seat containing Chard, Wellington and the Minehead/Exmoor area? If I do that I can keep all the wards round Bridgwater and all the wards round Taunton except for the one containing Trull (which looks like the sort of place which would at least think of itself as a village separate from Taunton) in the appropriate seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 8:41:30 GMT
The other question is what to take out of Cheltenham; I don't care very much but my bias (in a case like this where there aren't enough peripheral areas which aren't really part of the town) is always to try to take out a coherent group of wards rather than separate nibbles. I'm also pretty relaxed about which Cheltenham wards are taken out and there are any number of choices here. My thinking is informed (as in the Gloucester/Quedgeley case) by the fact that Leckhampton and Up Hatherley in the South of the town were part of Tewkesbury district up until 1991 along with Prestbury and Swindon so there is some logic to that even though it may not cut much ice 30 years on (and they were obviously moved into Cheltenham for a reason). Adding Pittville IMO brings the Tewkesbury seat too close to the centre of Cheltenham. Springbank would be continuous with the existing wards but this would split the Hesters Way community. You could reconfigure it completely, putting Prestbury and Swindon into Cheltenham and removing the three wards in the (formerly separate) Charlton Kings area but that also brings the seat too close to the town centre and that just seems like a whole lot of unnecessary disruption. Perhaps Pittville would be the best option (but please lets not have any of this Tewkesbury & Cheltenham Norrt, Cheltenham South nonsense.) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 8:49:15 GMT
If you're thinking about the partisan implications of a plan, the 2019 results aren't terribly relevant anyway - even aside from the specifics of the election, it's bloody difficult to deny a party a majority when it has an 11 point lead nationally. What's much more relevant is how a map would perform is you assume an approximate tie nationally.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,647
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jan 19, 2021 8:54:20 GMT
Regarding Somerset, how bad is it to have a "West Somerset" seat containing Chard, Wellington and the Minehead/Exmoor area? If I do that I can keep all the wards round Bridgwater and all the wards round Taunton except for the one containing Trull (which looks like the sort of place which would at least think of itself as a village separate from Taunton) in the appropriate seats. It’s not great, but is something I’ve tried. Trull is fiercely independent, although Taunton runs into Trull along the main road and there are no fields between them so it would be a bit odd having a boundary there, although as I’ve said before I’m not sure there is going to be a solution that doesn’t cut off part of Bridgwater town from Bridgwater or part of Taunton town from Taunton. And, as per other discussions a pattern that creates one poor seat to make all the others decent is not necessarily the worst solution. Part of the problem with Trull was the LGBCE lumping Trull in a ward with villages on the other side of the M5 with which they have little in common. I’ve said it before but some LGBCE decisions create unnecessary problems when reviewing parliamentary boundaries. A rural West Somerset obviously makes one very very safe Conservative seat, so the Lib Dens might be quite keen on it! Foggy splitting Taunton town is a new combination! Although the other seats are quite decent. The Conservatives would love Taunton East and Taunton West! |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 19, 2021 9:47:31 GMT
OK, might as well post it. I'm not expecting it to be universally popular.  1. North Somerset (73,963). Loses Yatton. 2. Weston-super-Mare (71,562). Gains Yatton; loses more rural inland wards. 3. Wells (71,228). Loses Shepton Mallet and Highbridge/Burnham areas; gains Congresbury area and the Poldens, crossing the Somerset CC/North Somerset boundary. 4. Frome (72,472). Loses Somerton area; gains Shepton Mallet area. 5. Yeovil (73,826). Loses Chard; gains a couple of rural wards. 6. Bridgwater (75,747). Loses all SW&T wards; gains Highbridge/Burnham area. 7. Taunton (72,669). Loses Wellington and other western areas; gains Somerton area in South Somerset. 8. West Somerset (74,397). SW&T except Taunton and areas to its east; the Chard area in South Somerset. 9. Bath (73,241). Gains Bathavon North. 10. North East Somerset (72,195). Loses Bathavon North; gains a couple of Mendip wards north of Frome, crossing the Somerset CC/BANES boundary. It's not hard to adjust this to remove the Somerset CC/BANES crossing if BANES goes with Wiltshire instead, or if Bathavon North ward is split to allow it to be treated on its own. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 10:46:25 GMT
I think the best bet then would be iain 's plan which was posted near the beginning of the thread but with the EAL plan for Bristol I had wanted to put Thornbury in the 'cross-county' seat but for the reason you state that is less than ideal I think I still prefer putting Yate with Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury in the seat with Dursley and Tetbury, in spite of the Chipping Sodbury issue, but it's a close run thing. I think Nailsworth should be kept in Stroud, with Severn ward going the other way; the shapes look worse but I think Nailsworth is a part of the core Stroud area in a way which Severn isn't. You can do that whichever decision you make regarding Yate and Thornbury. The other question is what to take out of Cheltenham; I don't care very much but my bias (in a case like this where there aren't enough peripheral areas which aren't really part of the town) is always to try to take out a coherent group of wards rather than separate nibbles. Regarding Bristol, I still favour my posted plan for the city itself, but I see EAL's argument that the four northern wards of the city should go with Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill (72694) so as to keep the five wards of 'greater Bradley Stoke' together, putting them in with Yate (but not Chipping Sodbury) as YL suggests (73355). That leaves the remaining wards of iain's Thornbury and Dursley seats, above, to form S Glos - probably the best compromise name, otherwise it will end up as 'Dursley, Thornbury, Tetbury, Chipping Sodbury, Berkeley, Grumbolds Ash...' (74445).
Regarding the rest of iain's plan, it looks fine except that it might be simpler for Tewkesbury to take only Springbank from Cheltenham (although it's undoubtedly a nibble).
However, should we not cater for the possibility that we need to accommodate a ward from Swindon? The alternative is to pair Swindon with Wiltshire, which is a very tricky 7.30. I'm guessing this will be impossible. Wilts by itself, however, is a more manageable 5.17, and given that it is to be divided into 98(!) single-member wards, meaning an average electorate below 4000, I'm optimistic it can be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 10:48:35 GMT
Here's a map which essentially combines elements of Foggy's map with YL's West Somerset seat. Minimises change in the four Avon seats, Frome (less Somerton) and Yeovil, rather more disruptive in the south west of the county but I like the Bridgwater seat and Wells isn't dreadful. In the 'theoretically possible, perhaps not even a bad idea on its own terms but you'll never convince the BCE of that' box, you could swap Wellington, Milverton and Cotford St Luke for Somerton et al.  Bath (73241) NE Somerset (71802) N Somerset (73919) Weston-super-Mare (70722) Wells (74537) Frome (70440) Yeovil (75967) Taunton & Somerton (72669) Bridgwater (75747) SW Somerset (72256) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 10:52:24 GMT
I think I still prefer putting Yate with Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury in the seat with Dursley and Tetbury, in spite of the Chipping Sodbury issue, but it's a close run thing. I think Nailsworth should be kept in Stroud, with Severn ward going the other way; the shapes look worse but I think Nailsworth is a part of the core Stroud area in a way which Severn isn't. You can do that whichever decision you make regarding Yate and Thornbury. The other question is what to take out of Cheltenham; I don't care very much but my bias (in a case like this where there aren't enough peripheral areas which aren't really part of the town) is always to try to take out a coherent group of wards rather than separate nibbles. Regarding Bristol, I still favour my posted plan for the city itself, but I see EAL's argument that the four northern wards of the city should go with Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill (72694) so as to keep the five wards of 'greater Bradley Stoke' together, putting them in with Yate (but not Chipping Sodbury) as YL suggests (73355). That leaves the remaining wards of iain's Thornbury and Dursley seats, above, to form S Glos - probably the best compromise name, otherwise it will end up as 'Dursley, Thornbury, Tetbury, Chipping Sodbury, Berkeley, Grumbolds Ash...' (74445). Regarding the rest of iain's plan, it looks fine except that it might be simpler for Tewkesbury to take only Springbank from Cheltenham (although it's undoubtedly a nibble). However, should we not cater for the possibility that we need to accommodate a ward from Swindon? The alternative is to pair Swindon with Wiltshire, which is a very tricky 7.30. I'm guessing this will be impossible. Wilts by itself, however, is a more manageable 5.17, and given that it is to be divided into 98(!) single-member wards, meaning an average electorate below 4000, I'm optimistic it can be done.
We don't know Wiltshire's wards, but Swindon is perfectly doable if you hive off the single-member Ridgeway ward to Wiltshire, which is small enough that Wiltshire might be doable with it added if we're lucky. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,452
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Jan 19, 2021 10:58:43 GMT
I think I still prefer putting Yate with Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury in the seat with Dursley and Tetbury, in spite of the Chipping Sodbury issue, but it's a close run thing. I think Nailsworth should be kept in Stroud, with Severn ward going the other way; the shapes look worse but I think Nailsworth is a part of the core Stroud area in a way which Severn isn't. You can do that whichever decision you make regarding Yate and Thornbury. The other question is what to take out of Cheltenham; I don't care very much but my bias (in a case like this where there aren't enough peripheral areas which aren't really part of the town) is always to try to take out a coherent group of wards rather than separate nibbles. Regarding Bristol, I still favour my posted plan for the city itself, but I see EAL's argument that the four northern wards of the city should go with Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill (72694) so as to keep the five wards of 'greater Bradley Stoke' together, putting them in with Yate (but not Chipping Sodbury) as YL suggests (73355). That leaves the remaining wards of iain's Thornbury and Dursley seats, above, to form S Glos - probably the best compromise name, otherwise it will end up as 'Dursley, Thornbury, Tetbury, Chipping Sodbury, Berkeley, Grumbolds Ash...' (74445).
Regarding the rest of iain's plan, it looks fine except that it might be simpler for Tewkesbury to take only Springbank from Cheltenham (although it's undoubtedly a nibble).
However, should we not cater for the possibility that we need to accommodate a ward from Swindon? The alternative is to pair Swindon with Wiltshire, which is a very tricky 7.30. I'm guessing this will be impossible. Wilts by itself, however, is a more manageable 5.17, and given that it is to be divided into 98(!) single-member wards, meaning an average electorate below 4000, I'm optimistic it can be done.
Springbank would be extremely isolated in such a constituency - the boundary review actually relented and split a ward in the zombie review rather than put it into Tewkesbury. That said, it would be better than taking Pittville, which extends right up to the town centre. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 11:05:24 GMT
Regarding Bristol, I still favour my posted plan for the city itself, but I see EAL's argument that the four northern wards of the city should go with Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill (72694) so as to keep the five wards of 'greater Bradley Stoke' together, putting them in with Yate (but not Chipping Sodbury) as YL suggests (73355). That leaves the remaining wards of iain's Thornbury and Dursley seats, above, to form S Glos - probably the best compromise name, otherwise it will end up as 'Dursley, Thornbury, Tetbury, Chipping Sodbury, Berkeley, Grumbolds Ash...' (74445). Regarding the rest of iain's plan, it looks fine except that it might be simpler for Tewkesbury to take only Springbank from Cheltenham (although it's undoubtedly a nibble). However, should we not cater for the possibility that we need to accommodate a ward from Swindon? The alternative is to pair Swindon with Wiltshire, which is a very tricky 7.30. I'm guessing this will be impossible. Wilts by itself, however, is a more manageable 5.17, and given that it is to be divided into 98(!) single-member wards, meaning an average electorate below 4000, I'm optimistic it can be done.
Springbank would be extremely isolated in such a constituency - the boundary review actually relented and split a ward in the zombie review rather than put it into Tewkesbury. That said, it would be better than taking Pittville, which extends right up to the town centre. One possibility is to move Prestbury into Cheltenham (since the area blends pretty imperceptably into Pittville and Oakley) and then send both Springbank and Hesters Way to Tewkesbury. That area is largely separated from the bulk of Cheltenham by main roads and links well via the M5 and A40 to the other parts of Tewkesbury constituency |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 11:13:04 GMT
Regarding Bristol, I still favour my posted plan for the city itself, but I see EAL's argument that the four northern wards of the city should go with Filton, Stoke Park, Frenchay and Staple Hill (72694) so as to keep the five wards of 'greater Bradley Stoke' together, putting them in with Yate (but not Chipping Sodbury) as YL suggests (73355). That leaves the remaining wards of iain's Thornbury and Dursley seats, above, to form S Glos - probably the best compromise name, otherwise it will end up as 'Dursley, Thornbury, Tetbury, Chipping Sodbury, Berkeley, Grumbolds Ash...' (74445). Regarding the rest of iain's plan, it looks fine except that it might be simpler for Tewkesbury to take only Springbank from Cheltenham (although it's undoubtedly a nibble). However, should we not cater for the possibility that we need to accommodate a ward from Swindon? The alternative is to pair Swindon with Wiltshire, which is a very tricky 7.30. I'm guessing this will be impossible. Wilts by itself, however, is a more manageable 5.17, and given that it is to be divided into 98(!) single-member wards, meaning an average electorate below 4000, I'm optimistic it can be done.
We don't know Wiltshire's wards, but Swindon is perfectly doable if you hive off the single-member Ridgeway ward to Wiltshire, which is small enough that Wiltshire might be doable with it added if we're lucky. And if we're not, Minety or Cricklade can be accommodated easily in the Cotswold seat without disturbing any of its neighbours |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,647
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jan 19, 2021 11:17:05 GMT
Here's a map which essentially combines elements of Foggy 's map with YL 's West Somerset seat. Minimises change in the four Avon seats, Frome (less Somerton) and Yeovil, rather more disruptive in the south west of the county but I like the Bridgwater seat and Wells isn't dreadful. In the 'theoretically possible, perhaps not even a bad idea on its own terms but you'll never convince the BCE of that' box, you could swap Wellington, Milverton and Cotford St Luke for Somerton et al. Bath (73241) NE Somerset (71802) N Somerset (73919) Weston-super-Mare (70722) Wells (74537) Frome (70440) Yeovil (75967) Taunton & Somerton (72669) Bridgwater (75747) SW Somerset (72256) I think those Wells and Bridgwater seats do work very well. If I was going with that arrangement, I’d be tempted to swap Somerton for Ilminster. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 11:39:43 GMT
Alternative arrangement for Somerset, which doesn't work particularly well in terms of cohesive seats, but does minimise movements of electorates whilst avoiding splitting towns:  Bridgwater and W Somerset 77062 Taunton Dean 75753 Mid Somerset 71860 (new seat) Yeovil 76087 Frome 70207 Burnham 70647 (successor to Wells) Weston-super-Mare 70722 N Somerset 73919 NE Somerset 71802 Bath 73241 Outside the new seat, after realignment to ward boundaries 50231 electors are moved between seats. Adding in the new seat, that's 122091 electors. Needless to say, that Mid Somerset is appalling, but it does set a rough point of comparison for what you need to do to count as a minimum change plan. With a bit of rotation, incidentally, you can alter this to get tolerable Burhan & Street, Frome & Wells, Yeovil and South Somerset seats. |
|
