2023 Review - South West

[iain]

Jan 19, 2021 11:05:24 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 19, 2021 10:58:43 GMT iain said:

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

I’m not sure that helps particularly. You would split a couple of estates between constituencies, and both wards very much ‘feel’ like a part of the town.

Prestbury is undoubtedly the best ward to take out of Cheltenham - much of it is a bit separate from Cheltenham, and people there like to pretend they live in a separate village. If you want to put one of the two wards into Cheltenham then Swindon Village is the better option. Swindon Village itself is separate from the town, and Wymans Brook has a similar feel to Prestbury. However, the ward includes a few roads in the south which are functionally a part of St Paul’s, and have no business being outside Cheltenham constituency. In an ideal world this ward would be split, but that obviously isn’t going to happen.

As Cheltenham previously had to omit two wards, these two were the obvious choice. If you needed to get rid of three then the area you would probably hive off would be the ‘Hatherley’ area which was mostly built in the late 20th century and has decent links with some villages in the south of Tewkesbury district. This roughly corresponds to the wards of Benhall & the Reddings, Up Hatherley and Warden Hill. These wards are 100% part of Cheltenham, but do form a relatively coherent unit which lack links to other wards. Again, I would rather split a couple of wards to get ideal Parliamentary boundaries, but that isn’t going to happen.

Ideally I would stick with my four ward removal, leaving Warden Hill in Cheltenham. This is because it includes some areas which begin to link better with other areas of the town and would be a bit odd to exclude from Cheltenham (the area around Bournside) even if the ward fits nicely with Up Hatherley. All in all, though, my preference for the four ward over the three ward removal (the latter putting Swindon Village and Tewkesbury back into Cheltenham) is not strong, and either solution would work alright.

[The Bishop]

Jan 18, 2021 16:39:43 GMT maxque said:

Jan 18, 2021 10:32:37 GMT The Bishop said:

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).

As one suspected might be the case, being Canadian you didn't actually get the reference. Never mind, and lets not derail this thread any further

(Google is your friend if you really want to know btw)

[mattb]

Jan 19, 2021 11:39:43 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

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.

Interesting.
This was my attempt.
I would argue that both my proposed Frome and Somerton seats are 'successors': both of them are comprised more than 55% from the existing seat (and the existing seat is split almost 50/50). On that basis only just over 100k electors are moved. (obviously if you count all the electors in one of those seats as 'moving' then the total is higher, just over 140k).

[bjornhattan]

Jan 19, 2021 10:52:24 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jan 19, 2021 10:46:25 GMT islington said:

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.

I definitely agree with removing Ridgeway from Swindon - I've seen plans which remove Wroughton and Wichelstowe (particularly those which cross the Wiltshire county boundary somewhere). The main difference there is that Ridgeway ward is entirely outwith Swindon's urban area (except for a small housing estate near the hospital). That's true of Wroughton as well, but the estates being built in Wichelstowe are north of the M4 and will be much more closely linked to urban Swindon.

Ridgeway does look worse on a map, but it's nowhere near as bad as the pre-1997 arrangement when Devizes constituency stretched all the way to Highworth!

[greenhert]

Jan 18, 2021 19:15:33 GMT greenhert said:

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.

My second plan for Bristol/Gloucestershire (this time involving breaking up Filton & Bradley Stoke instead of Kingswood)

Seats 1 through 4 and 9 through 14 stay as before.

5. Bristol North East (71,827). New seat. Contains the Bristol wards of Eastville, Frome Vale, Hillfields and Lockleaze, and the South Gloucestershire wards of Filton, Frenchay & Downend, Staple Hill & Mangotsfield, and Stoke Park & Cheswick. Note that Mangotsfield was in a seat called Bristol North East from 1955 to 1974.
6. Kingswood (71,994). Adds Boyd Valley ward.
7. Thornbury & Bradley Stoke (72,206). Succeeds Filton & Bradley Stoke in practice. Loses Filton, Frenchay & Downend, Staple Hill & Mangotsfield, and Stoke Park & Cheswick wards, gains Frampton Cotterell, Severn Vale, and Thornbury wards.
8. Yate (75,594). Succeeds Thornbury & Yate in practice. Loses Boyd Valley, Frampton Cotterell, Severn Vale, and Thornbury wards in South Gloucestershire, and gains 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.

[John Chanin]

I have finally completed a region to my satisfaction, but I've been too lazy to download Boundary Assistant and find a hosting site to link maps to. I will comment in more detail when I have worked through everyone elses’s suggestions, but:

(a) Cornwall is easy with minimal change

(b) I found a nice solution for Devon, with minimal change in the west, by adding Lyme Regis (& Marshwood Vale) to a Homiton seat. Central Devon is just wards from Teignbridge & West Devon, and the new Tiverton seat contains the whole of mid Devon plus surplus wards from North Devon and East Devon to bring it up to size.

(c) Greater Bournemouth is straightforward for 4 seats - there are choices

(d) Dorset less Lyme requires redrawing and I have linked Dorchester with Purbeck, and Weymouth with Bridport. There are alternatives but this is neat

(e) Surprisingly I can do Wiltshire for 7 large seats, although the Warminster to Tidworth (“Mid Wiltshire”) isn’t very pretty. I don’t want to cross into Somerset.

(f) Somerset works nicely for 6 small seats, the new one being Chard, Wellington, and Minehead.

(g) North Somerset & BANES are too big for 4 seats. I suspect many people have linked with Somerset, but I have added Keynsham to the north instead, as I like my Somerset arrangement

(h) I have recreated a Bristol NE seat, containing the north part of the existing Bristol East, and the surpluses from NW & West.

(i) The cross district seat is Brislington & St Georges plus Keynsham, plus Hanham, Woodstock & Kingswood (Bristol SE?). This is the neatest arrangement I can find, after many tries.

(j) Filton & Bradley Stoke is nearly unaltered.

(k) Yate is too big to go with the surplus wards from Stroud, so I have a Yate & Bitton seat running down the east side of South Gloucestershire.

(l) This leaves Dursley & Cam to go with Thornbury and Severnside.

(m) Gloucestershire is straightforward with not much change, and I doubt anyone will have a very different arrangement.

[John Chanin]

I didn't realise they weren't the final wards to be used for Wiltshire. All that work getting 7 reasonable seats for nothing! A border crossing may be needed.

On Plymouth I decided to keep the existing arrangement, just swapping 1 ward between Sutton and Moor View to bring the latter up to size. You don't then have enough votes to do Devon on its own, but as I said adding Lyme works very nicely, and actually helps with Dorset.

I seem to be the only person who has retained Filton & Bradley Stoke largely unaltered, just stripping out the rural wards. Others have managed to find arrangements that eluded me.

As I suspected taking Keynsham into a SE Bristol seat is a unique idea, but I didn't want to split the Midsomer Norton/Radstock area, which I saw as the only reasonable alternative (I suppose you could take out Bathavon South & Peasedown - I hadn't considered that)

[minionofmidas]

Jan 25, 2021 13:56:13 GMT John Chanin said:

I have finally completed a region to my satisfaction, but I've been too lazy to download Boundary Assistant and find a hosting site to link maps to.

download?

[swindonlad]

Jan 25, 2021 14:26:58 GMT John Chanin said:

I didn't realise they weren't the final wards to be used for Wiltshire. All that work getting 7 reasonable seats for nothing! A border crossing may be needed.

On Plymouth I decided to keep the existing arrangement, just swapping 1 ward between Sutton and Moor View to bring the latter up to size. You don't then have enough votes to do Devon on its own, but as I said adding Lyme works very nicely, and actually helps with Dorset.

I seem to be the only person who has retained Filton & Bradley Stoke largely unaltered, just stripping out the rural wards. Others have managed to find arrangements that eluded me.

As I suspected taking Keynsham into a SE Bristol seat is a unique idea, but I didn't want to split the Midsomer Norton/Radstock area, which I saw as the only reasonable alternative (I suppose you could take out Bathavon South & Peasedown - I hadn't considered that)

Cornwall will change as well, that's on the list

It is possible to do just Devon without having the cross the boundary

[John Chanin]

That's really irritating. The Cornwall and Wiltshire orders were made some time ago. There's no excuse for submitting data to ONS on the old boundaries. I wonder how many more of these there are outside London.

[swindonlad]

Jan 25, 2021 15:16:11 GMT John Chanin said:

That's really irritating. The Cornwall and Wiltshire orders were made some time ago. There's no excuse for submitting data to ONS on the old boundaries. I wonder how many more of these there are outside London.

The list of authorities with ‘prospective’ wards as at 1 December 2020 is: 1) Barnet; 2) Basingstoke and Deane; 3) Brent; 4) Buckinghamshire; 5) Cambridge; 6) Camden; 7) Chorley; 8) Cornwall; 9) Ealing; 10) Enfield; 11) Halton; 12) Hammersmith and Fulham; 13) Haringey; 14) Harrow; 15) Hartlepool; 16) Hillingdon; 17) Hounslow; 18) Isle of Wight; 19) Islington; 20) Lewisham; 21) Merton; 22) North Northamptonshire; 23) Oxford; 24) Pendle; 25) Richmond upon Thames; 26) Rotherham; 27) Salford; 28) Sutton; 29) West Northamptonshire; 30) Westminster; 31) Wiltshire.

[YL]

Jan 25, 2021 14:26:58 GMT John Chanin said:

As I suspected taking Keynsham into a SE Bristol seat is a unique idea, but I didn't want to split the Midsomer Norton/Radstock area, which I saw as the only reasonable alternative (I suppose you could take out Bathavon South & Peasedown - I hadn't considered that)

I don't understand this comment; perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the rest of your map?

Bath & North East Somerset has 1.93 quotas, so it can either be treated on its own for two small seats or take on a small area from a neighbouring authority for two seats; either way it doesn't need anything taking out. I don't think anyone has split Midsomer Norton/Radstock or done anything surprising with Bathavon South and Peasedown.

The idea of treating it on its own hasn't been considered much, presumably because it requires either splitting a ward or splitting Bath. But either of those is enough to allow it, so it could be considered.

[greatkingrat]

Jan 25, 2021 15:16:11 GMT John Chanin said:

That's really irritating. The Cornwall and Wiltshire orders were made some time ago. There's no excuse for submitting data to ONS on the old boundaries. I wonder how many more of these there are outside London.

It is not that the councils couldn't be bothered to send in up to date figures. The councils are required to send in electorate data on *current* wards as at Dec 2020 to the ONS, just like they do every other year whether there is a boundary review or not.

Separately in the legislation there is a requirement to provide electorate data for prospective wards to the BCE where applicable, but that doesn't afffect the normal annual reporting.

[John Chanin]

Jan 25, 2021 18:13:46 GMT YL said:

Jan 25, 2021 14:26:58 GMT John Chanin said:

As I suspected taking Keynsham into a SE Bristol seat is a unique idea, but I didn't want to split the Midsomer Norton/Radstock area, which I saw as the only reasonable alternative (I suppose you could take out Bathavon South & Peasedown - I hadn't considered that)

I don't understand this comment; perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the rest of your map?

Bath & North East Somerset has 1.93 quotas, so it can either be treated on its own for two small seats or take on a small area from a neighbouring authority for two seats; either way it doesn't need anything taking out. I don't think anyone has split Midsomer Norton/Radstock or done anything surprising with Bathavon South and Peasedown.

The idea of treating it on its own hasn't been considered much, presumably because it requires either splitting a ward or splitting Bath. But either of those is enough to allow it, so it could be considered.

Well yes, obviously you can take a couple of North Somerset wards into Wells (Banwell, Blagdon).  I guess I did Somerset without reference to Avon, and was reluctant to mess up my Somerset map.  I will review this in due course, but think I will have a go at another region first.

[John Chanin]

Jan 25, 2021 18:41:40 GMT greatkingrat said:

Jan 25, 2021 15:16:11 GMT John Chanin said:

That's really irritating. The Cornwall and Wiltshire orders were made some time ago. There's no excuse for submitting data to ONS on the old boundaries. I wonder how many more of these there are outside London.

It is not that the councils couldn't be bothered to send in up to date figures. The councils are required to send in electorate data on *current* wards as at Dec 2020 to the ONS, just like they do every other year whether there is a boundary review or not.

Separately in the legislation there is a requirement to provide electorate data for prospective wards to the BCE where applicable, but that doesn't afffect the normal annual reporting.

Yes but this isn’t the regular December 2020 data which was published as usual.  This is data supplied at March 2020 specifically for the purpose of the boundary review.

[minionofmidas]

Jan 25, 2021 18:13:46 GMT YL said:

Jan 25, 2021 14:26:58 GMT John Chanin said:

As I suspected taking Keynsham into a SE Bristol seat is a unique idea, but I didn't want to split the Midsomer Norton/Radstock area, which I saw as the only reasonable alternative (I suppose you could take out Bathavon South & Peasedown - I hadn't considered that)

I don't understand this comment; perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the rest of your map?

Bath & North East Somerset has 1.93 quotas, so it can either be treated on its own for two small seats or take on a small area from a neighbouring authority for two seats; either way it doesn't need anything taking out. I don't think anyone has split Midsomer Norton/Radstock or done anything surprising with Bathavon South and Peasedown.

The idea of treating it on its own hasn't been considered much, presumably because it requires either splitting a ward or splitting Bath. But either of those is enough to allow it, so it could be considered.

If Banes absorbs all of N Somerset's surplus then something (that something being Norton-Radstock) needs to be taken out as in several maps on page 2 and 3.
What kind of map do you get if you pair Somerset and N Somerset w/o Banes?

[YL]

Jan 25, 2021 19:48:57 GMT minionofmidas said:

Jan 25, 2021 18:13:46 GMT YL said:

I don't understand this comment; perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the rest of your map?

Bath & North East Somerset has 1.93 quotas, so it can either be treated on its own for two small seats or take on a small area from a neighbouring authority for two seats; either way it doesn't need anything taking out. I don't think anyone has split Midsomer Norton/Radstock or done anything surprising with Bathavon South and Peasedown.

The idea of treating it on its own hasn't been considered much, presumably because it requires either splitting a ward or splitting Bath. But either of those is enough to allow it, so it could be considered.

If Banes absorbs all of N Somerset's surplus then something (that something being Norton-Radstock) needs to be taken out as in several maps on page 2 and 3.
What kind of map do you get if you pair Somerset and N Somerset w/o Banes?

That'll teach me for not looking properly at the earliest plans posted. (Although I don't think they actually split Midsomer Norton and Radstock.)

My Somerset plan (this post) is easily converted into one for Somerset and North Somerset without BANES simply by restoring the two wards I added to NE Somerset to the Frome seat. (Because that's what it originally was.)

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 25, 2021 19:48:57 GMT minionofmidas said:

Jan 25, 2021 18:13:46 GMT YL said:

I don't understand this comment; perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the rest of your map?

Bath & North East Somerset has 1.93 quotas, so it can either be treated on its own for two small seats or take on a small area from a neighbouring authority for two seats; either way it doesn't need anything taking out. I don't think anyone has split Midsomer Norton/Radstock or done anything surprising with Bathavon South and Peasedown.

The idea of treating it on its own hasn't been considered much, presumably because it requires either splitting a ward or splitting Bath. But either of those is enough to allow it, so it could be considered.

If Banes absorbs all of N Somerset's surplus then something (that something being Norton-Radstock) needs to be taken out as in several maps on page 2 and 3.
What kind of map do you get if you pair Somerset and N Somerset w/o Banes?

Not entirely true. You can mathematically fit 4 seats in there. You can actually do it with a perfectly reasonable Weston just below the limit and an acceptable N Somerset. The difficulty is that the wards round Bath are just slightly the wrong size to work and solving that produces all manner of unholy outcomes.

EDIT: This is the least terrible way I could find to accomplish it:



Weston 76978
N Somerset 76934
Midsomer and Bath SW 76744
Bath & Keynsham 75074

Bath is too genteel for pitchforks, right?

[greenhert]

Jan 25, 2021 21:22:30 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jan 25, 2021 19:48:57 GMT minionofmidas said:

If Banes absorbs all of N Somerset's surplus then something (that something being Norton-Radstock) needs to be taken out as in several maps on page 2 and 3.
What kind of map do you get if you pair Somerset and N Somerset w/o Banes?

Not entirely true. You can mathematically fit 4 seats in there. You can actually do it with a perfectly reasonable Weston just below the limit and an acceptable N Somerset. The difficulty is that the wards round Bath are just slightly the wrong size to work and solving that produces all manner of unholy outcomes.

EDIT: This is the least terrible way I could find to accomplish it:



Weston 76978
N Somerset 76934
Midsomer and Bath SW 76744
Bath & Keynsham 75074

Bath is too genteel for pitchforks, right?

Still bad enough that BaNES should accept the loss of Radstock and Midsomer Norton to a Frome constituency. It would not be the first time either, since Midsomer Norton and Radstock were in the 1918-50 constituency of Frome.

[bjornhattan]

Jan 25, 2021 21:22:30 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jan 25, 2021 19:48:57 GMT minionofmidas said:

If Banes absorbs all of N Somerset's surplus then something (that something being Norton-Radstock) needs to be taken out as in several maps on page 2 and 3.
What kind of map do you get if you pair Somerset and N Somerset w/o Banes?

Not entirely true. You can mathematically fit 4 seats in there. You can actually do it with a perfectly reasonable Weston just below the limit and an acceptable N Somerset. The difficulty is that the wards round Bath are just slightly the wrong size to work and solving that produces all manner of unholy outcomes.

EDIT: This is the least terrible way I could find to accomplish it:



Weston 76978
N Somerset 76934
Midsomer and Bath SW 76744
Bath & Keynsham 75074

Bath is too genteel for pitchforks, right?

The bits of Bath you've put into your Midsomer seat are decidedly not genteel!