|
Post by andrewp on Jan 31, 2021 17:20:35 GMT
Personally I think those arrangements are better than the minimal change option in Worcestershire.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 31, 2021 20:07:24 GMT
Although it’s obviously the little change option that the Boundary commission will probably go for, as the Mid Worcestershire seat gets thinner, I think it becomes less ideal. Would the numbers work to spin Mid Worcestershire and West Worcestershire through 90% into a sort of North Worcestershire and South Worcestershire or would Malvern end up being split to get both seats into quota? If you want a slight alternative you can do something pretty similar without making any changes to Wyre Forest. Bromsgrove can still extend as far north as Hagley, extends down to take in Droitwich but not the wards to the west of the town (Clains, Ombersely, etc). Those go to Malvern plus one other ward south of Worcester and that allows a Malvern based seat and an Evesham based seat that just make it up to quota. The Bromsgrove and Redditch seats are easier if you spin the Rubery wards off in to Birmingham as I have done but you can still make it work without doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 31, 2021 21:21:51 GMT
I thought I'd also try throwing a Birmingham ward into the Black country mix and I'm quite happy with the result so far. It seems to me that the area where the boundary is most porous is between Smethwick and the Rotton Park area therefore adding the rather misnamed North Edgbaston ward to the Warley seat. It's enabled better seats than I've managed before in both Birmingham and especially the Black country. The Solihull/Birmingham boundary is still crossed twice but I don't have a particular problem with that (I think its better than splitting Smiths Wood from the wider Chelmsley Wood area). I am also still committed to taking Hagley (which I am equally relaxed about.) The one issue I may have is that I've added an additional ward (Wordsley) into the South Staffordshire seat which means I will need to redraw the boundaries in the rest of the county. Given others have managed to do this and emidsanorak did it with four, I don't think this will be a problem - it may even help
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 31, 2021 22:00:05 GMT
And Staffordshire works quite nicely with that..
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 31, 2021 23:12:36 GMT
Interesting decision to take Uttoxeter out of the Burton seat. I hadnt considered that although it seems obvious in hindsight. I still need to get round to reading all the pages of this thread.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 31, 2021 23:13:59 GMT
And Staffordshire works quite nicely with that.. Staffordshire as a whole is problematic but I really dislike that Stoke on Trent North.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 31, 2021 23:23:58 GMT
And Staffordshire works quite nicely with that.. Staffordshire as a whole is problematic but I really dislike that Stoke on Trent North. It might warrant a different name as not that much of it is within the city of Stoke, but the whole area seems to fit together reasonably well. It probably should include Cellarhead as well which is possible if you put Fulford into Moorlands. You've got to push one of the Stoke seats out into the sticks
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 31, 2021 23:30:01 GMT
Biddulph would probably object to being included in a Stoke seat, especially a Stoke-named seat. It does have links with Leek even though the road connections are not very good.
Council boundaries in the towns north of Stoke are not particularly logical - Biddulph, Kidsgrove and Tunstall are in three different council areas but are very similar and almost contiguous towns.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 31, 2021 23:49:07 GMT
Staffordshire as a whole is problematic but I really dislike that Stoke on Trent North. It might warrant a different name as not that much of it is within the city of Stoke, but the whole area seems to fit together reasonably well. It probably should include Cellarhead as well which is possible if you put Fulford into Moorlands. You've got to push one of the Stoke seats out into the sticks Biddulph really isn't a good fit with Stoke at all. However I don't see any obviously good alternatives. I am toying with reducing Stoke to two seats and bunging some of its southern wards into Stone but I don't really like that either and it has some seriously awkward knock on effects.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 31, 2021 23:57:42 GMT
It might warrant a different name as not that much of it is within the city of Stoke, but the whole area seems to fit together reasonably well. It probably should include Cellarhead as well which is possible if you put Fulford into Moorlands. You've got to push one of the Stoke seats out into the sticks Biddulph really isn't a good fit with Stoke at all. However I don't see any obviously good alternatives. I am toying with reducing Stoke to two seats and bunging some of its southern wards into Stone but I don't really like that either and it has some seriously awkward knock on effects. I mean effectively I have reduced Stoke to two seats and bunged a few of its Northern wards in another seat with Kidsgrove and Biddulph. As I say the name could be something different to reflect this. If you hive off some wards from the South you're going to have a problem about what to do with Kidsgrove
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,304
|
Post by YL on Feb 1, 2021 9:15:35 GMT
I mean effectively I have reduced Stoke to two seats and bunged a few of its Northern wards in another seat with Kidsgrove and Biddulph. As I say the name could be something different to reflect this. If you hive off some wards from the South you're going to have a problem about what to do with Kidsgrove Yes, it's really only the northern edge of the city, and doesn't include the centres of any of the "Six Towns", even Tunstall. I have exactly the same arrangement (indeed it appears that somehow we have come up with identical Stoke, N-u-L and Leek & Uttoxeter seats) and was definitely going to have Biddulph in the name.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 1, 2021 9:42:29 GMT
Right, here's my umpteenth attempt at Staffs. It's not necessarily my last word on the subject, but it benefits from some of the suggestions in recent posts and also tackles some of the identified drawbacks.
West Staffordshire - 70454. Essentially, what was left over; but more coherent than a lot of 'left over' seats. Stafford - 75046. Including Stone with Stafford gives us the key seat: very compact, and sitting nicely in the centre of the county. Newcastle under Lyme - 72514. The current seat plus Talke. Stoke on Trent North - 70582. Compared with Pete Whitehead 's version, it probably includes just enough Stoke wards (notably, including Tunstall) to justify the name. Includes Biddulph and Kidsgrove. Stoke on Trent Central - 70350. The existing seriously under-sized seat extended north to include the Burslem area. Stoke on Trent South - 71323. The existing seat with the numbers made up by two wards from Stafford district. Leek and Uttoxeter - 72486. Very similar to Pete Whitehead's version. Burton - 70182. As per Pete Whitehead. Tamworth - 70625. Lichfield - 70376. Lt Aston ward is admittedly out on something of a limb but the point about this configuration is that, even after Colton ward has gone for a Burton, it keeps both Lichfield and Tamworth within range with the loan of only one ward from Cannock. Cannock - 71875. The current seat minus only Rawnsley.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 1, 2021 11:05:07 GMT
I thought I'd also try throwing a Birmingham ward into the Black country mix and I'm quite happy with the result so far. It seems to me that the area where the boundary is most porous is between Smethwick and the Rotton Park area therefore adding the rather misnamed North Edgbaston ward to the Warley seat. It's enabled better seats than I've managed before in both Birmingham and especially the Black country. The Solihull/Birmingham boundary is still crossed twice but I don't have a particular problem with that (I think its better than splitting Smiths Wood from the wider Chelmsley Wood area). I am also still committed to taking Hagley (which I am equally relaxed about.) The one issue I may have is that I've added an additional ward (Wordsley) into the South Staffordshire seat which means I will need to redraw the boundaries in the rest of the county. Given others have managed to do this and emidsanorak did it with four, I don't think this will be a problem - it may even help I've been giving some more thought to the Black Country arrangements. While my seat centred on Tipton (named Wednesbury above) is a huge improvement on what I had previously in that area, I am still not quite happy with it. Clearly there are good links as between Tipton and Coseley but these become tenuous at best when considering those between Wednesbury at one end of the seat and Sedgeley at the other. There has been a presumption that Walsall and Wolverhampton being good for five seats should be kept out of the wider equation and there are sound arguments for this. There are various combinations that work here but all of them come up against the problem that three Wolverhampton wards need to join the cross-borough seats - this will typically be the two Wednesfields plus one other or the two Bilstons plus one other. The 'one other' will often involve dividing whichever of Bilston or Wednesfield has not supplied both their eponymous wards, alternatively it involves a third Wolverhampton ward which also proves less than wholly satisfactory This example above is not terrible - it satisfies the East Anglian Lefty test of keeping all the names pairs of wards together. However Fallings Park does not fit very well in that cross-borough seat and Wolverhampton East is a little awkwardly shaped as well. Additionally I am still unhappy with the Wednesbury/Tipton/Coseley seat. Introducing a third borough crossing here makes for rather more natural constituencies in this area: This does mean splitting Willenhall North from the rest of Willenhall but really that area is Willenhall in name only and seems to be at least as well linked to Bloxwich as to Willenhall proper (the centre of which is in fact in Willenhall South). I should have preferred here to put Willenhall South in the Wednesbury seat, keep Pleck in a Walsall seat and put Willenhall North in the Wolverhampton East seat but this puts Wednesbury over quota. The clear downside to this scheme is that it introduces another, 'unnecessary' cross borough seat but I think that could be a price worth paying for more coherent/natural constituencies. It's also possible to rotate the three Wolverhampton seats so that Bushbury goes into Wolverhampton West, East Park into Wolverhampton East and Blakenhall into Bilston which does make the last two seats even more coherent
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 1, 2021 20:39:22 GMT
This example above is not terrible - it satisfies the East Anglian Lefty test of keeping all the names pairs of wards together. I fear that the boundary commission will apply a similar test which in many cases will be based on dubious ward names. While there are certainly pairs such as the Bloxwich wards which I agree should not be split there are plenty that I am happy to split. You have already mentioned the Willenhall North ward as one that does not need to be with it's namesake but I would certainly add Aldridge to that. The vast majority of the town is in the Central and South ward and while the split isn't ideal it allows for a nice north/south split of all of the Walsall area to the East of the M6. To a lesser degree I think splitting Wednesfield is tolerable
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 1, 2021 21:01:38 GMT
I've been giving some more thought to the Black Country arrangements. While my seat centred on Tipton (named Wednesbury above) is a huge improvement on what I had previously in that area, I am still not quite happy with it. Clearly there are good links as between Tipton and Coseley but these become tenuous at best when considering those between Wednesbury at one end of the seat and Sedgeley at the other. I have that same seat at the moment. I don't particularly like it but I might end up tolerating it because it allows for the rest of Dudley and Sandwell to be mostly problem free.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 1, 2021 21:37:20 GMT
I've been giving some more thought to the Black Country arrangements. While my seat centred on Tipton (named Wednesbury above) is a huge improvement on what I had previously in that area, I am still not quite happy with it. Clearly there are good links as between Tipton and Coseley but these become tenuous at best when considering those between Wednesbury at one end of the seat and Sedgeley at the other. I have that same seat at the moment. I don't particularly like it but I might end up tolerating it because it allows for the rest of Dudley and Sandwell to be mostly problem free. Yes I may stick with it just to leave the Walsall and Wolverhampton arrangements alone. I strongly agree with your point about Aldridge btw I'm not sure the commission will be quite as rigid as you suggest. I recall in a previous review they proposed a Hampstead & Golders Green seat which added to Hampstead the Barnet wards of Childs Hill and Garden Suburb but not Golders Green ward itself. There was some mirth on this forum about Hampstead & Golders Green not including Golders Green but in fact they were being entirely reasonable as most of the area people would consider to be Golders Green is within the two wards which were included. So they may appreciate some of the subtleties in the names/boundaries here too
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 1, 2021 23:34:14 GMT
I finally came up with a Staffordshire that I am mostly okay with. It contains a pretty ugly Stoke South and Stone seat but which ever way you do it either Stoke North or South is going to be less than ideal.
I ended up nicking the Newton Regis and Warton ward from North Warwickshire and adding it to my Tamworth seat. I don't see any major reason why it would be problematic and it made things a lot easier in SE Staffs.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,508
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 3, 2021 9:15:45 GMT
Just had another play around with this region.
In Shropshire, my Telford wasn't doughnutted by the Wrekin but I swapped a couple of wards and now it is.
In Worcestershire, I've tidied up my Malvern and Evesham constituencies on the basis of plans posted here, although the latter seat still frustratingly contains an orphan ward from Redditch (which could afford to lose it as it's taken in wards from Bromsgrove) – albeit the most logical one.
In Staffs, I've tried de-linking Burton from Uttoxeter as suggested here, and it produces some positive and negative knock-on effects. The new Leek & Uttoxeter seat looks fine, as does Burton on a map without local authority boundaries... but it needs to take in an orphan ward from Lichfield. It allows me to tidy up Stoke North and Newcastle-under-Lyme as well. On the other hand, my Lichfield now extends too far northwards to Hilderstone unless I want to split Cannock Chase district, and what started as the successor to South Staffs has become an obvious 'leftovers' seat by having to take in one more ward than I'd like from Stafford so that it now stretches to Woodseaves. As noted by islington, the constituency containing Great Wyrley might as well be called Staffordshire West at this point.
I'd already revised my Warwickshire plan a couple of weeks ago so that Warwick & Leamington no longer looked like a near-doughnut. I then tried to make some changes in Walsall, remembered what a nightmare the urban WM is and gave up on that area once again.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by john07 on Feb 6, 2021 23:36:41 GMT
It might warrant a different name as not that much of it is within the city of Stoke, but the whole area seems to fit together reasonably well. It probably should include Cellarhead as well which is possible if you put Fulford into Moorlands. You've got to push one of the Stoke seats out into the sticks Biddulph really isn't a good fit with Stoke at all. However I don't see any obviously good alternatives. I am toying with reducing Stoke to two seats and bunging some of its southern wards into Stone but I don't really like that either and it has some seriously awkward knock on effects. That's the problem with Biddulph, if it doesn't fit in with Stoke, where will it fit in with? And don't say "Put it where the sun don't shine!"
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 7, 2021 0:23:43 GMT
Biddulph really isn't a good fit with Stoke at all. However I don't see any obviously good alternatives. I am toying with reducing Stoke to two seats and bunging some of its southern wards into Stone but I don't really like that either and it has some seriously awkward knock on effects. That's the problem with Biddulph, if it doesn't fit in with Stoke, where will it fit in with? And don't say "Put it where the sun don't shine!" The best place for it is in a similar seat to where it is now. Unfortunately northern Staffordshire has no good solutions. You can create two good seats from Stoke but you have 20,000 - 30,000 electors that need to find a seat that includes areas outside the city. The only good fit would be with Newcastle but that town makes a perfectly sensible seat by itself. Thus you either have a seat including northern Stoke and Bidulph or southern Stoke and Stone. I don't care for either options but I don't see an alternative.
|
|