|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 7, 2021 10:18:17 GMT
Biddulph does have links with Congleton - the's only a few hundred yards between the last houses in them and the local newspapers are part of the same group. But unfortunately there's a regional boundary between them.
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Feb 7, 2021 22:50:48 GMT
I thought I'd try a slightly different approach to Staffs by adding in Shropshire. I know Shropshire can standalone but I think there are a couple of benefits to a cross-county seat: 1) Dudley and Staffs are entitled to 14.61 and Shropshire (inc Telford) is entitled to 5.12 so adding it helps the average seat size a little bit 2) Shropshire generally has small wards so adding it in and creating seats at the lower end allows more flexibility in Staffs. I don't want to get a rain of pitchforks on my head but I think my Kingswinford and Bridgnorth seat has a nice shape on the map. It is less than 15 miles between the 2 towns due to the narrowness of the Seisdon peninsula. You can then have some much nicer seats in the rest of Staffs - a compact Stafford and Stone seat and then a West Staffs only consisting of wards from Stafford and S Staffs districts. You don't then need to break up Cannock Chase or Burton and Uttoxeter. NB: My W Midlands plan has one split ward - Stourbridge N and Lye. imgur.com/oyWSDXqThere are other options for a cross-county seat. Taking out Market Drayton allows for minimal change in the rest of Shropshire but it then needs to go in the W Staffs seat. Alternatively Shifnal can replace Bridgnorth in the Kingswinford seat.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 8, 2021 20:03:27 GMT
I did a close to standalone 11 seat Staffordshire (just keeping Kinver for my Stourbridge seat) and while the north of the county is still sub optimal the rest worked much better with Cannock, Burton, Lichfield, South Staffs, Stafford and Tamworth largely unchanged.
The trouble with Kingswinford + South Staffs seat is that it leaves the Great Wyrley area with no obvious home and either causes knock problems with currently good seats or results a West Staffordshire seat that is far from ideal.
Unfortunately getting Birmingham/Dudley/Sandwell/Solihull to work as 19 seats is really problematic. They come to about 18.4 quotas (more like 18.5 including Kinver + the Hagley wards) and so it should be doable. What I quickly found however was that while adding one Birmingham ward to a Sandwell seat (North Edgbaston) works very well once you add anymore everything else in Birmingham becomes highly problematic. It isn't impossible but unless you are going to split wards it is a right mess.
This is a real pity because not only does it allow an improved Staffordshire but it also allows for much better Dudley seats
Dudley North: Current seat + Coseley Dudley South: Current seat + Dudley Wood/Quarry Bank Stourbridge: Current seat - Dudley Wood/Quarry Bank + Kinver + Hagley (X2)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 8, 2021 22:23:05 GMT
I did a close to standalone 11 seat Staffordshire (just keeping Kinver for my Stourbridge seat) and while the north of the county is still sub optimal the rest worked much better with Cannock, Burton, Lichfield, South Staffs, Stafford and Tamworth largely unchanged. The trouble with Kingswinford + South Staffs seat is that it leaves the Great Wyrley area with no obvious home and either causes knock problems with currently good seats or results a West Staffordshire seat that is far from ideal. Unfortunately getting Birmingham/Dudley/Sandwell/Solihull to work as 19 seats is really problematic. They come to about 18.4 quotas (more like 18.5 including Kinver + the Hagley wards) and so it should be doable. What I quickly found however was that while adding one Birmingham ward to a Sandwell seat (North Edgbaston) works very well once you add anymore everything else in Birmingham becomes highly problematic. It isn't impossible but unless you are going to split wards it is a right mess. This is a real pity because not only does it allow an improved Staffordshire but it also allows for much better Dudley seats Dudley North: Current seat + Coseley Dudley South: Current seat + Dudley Wood/Quarry Bank Stourbridge: Current seat - Dudley Wood/Quarry Bank + Kinver + Hagley (X2) The problem with that last arrangement (besides the other problems you describe in Birmingham) is that it's going to be really hard to sell a plan that crosses the boundaries of three (ceremonial) counties. I have long been an advocate of adding Hagley to Stourbridge and others have advocated Kinver but adding both seems like a non-starter. In fact I'm increasingly of the view that a ward split would be a better option there with the 'Cradley South' section of Hayley Green & Cradley South (which is almost completely detached from the rest of that ward) being used to bring Stourbridge up to quota. The Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay area does fit perfectly well with Cannock which is the obvious homw. The only problem is that Cannock Chase is in quota as it is so could be left alone, whereas adding this large area means removing others, effectively dismembering the seat. Since Rugeley is separated from Cannock and Hednesford by Cannock Chase and Norton Canes is somewhat separate too, this can be done in a way which leaves Cannock as a reasonably coherent seat even if it is very substantially redrawn
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 8, 2021 22:29:00 GMT
I offer up an alternative cross county seat instead of the Kingswinford crossing.
Aldridge and Burntwood (72,651)
Walsall Wards: Aldridge (X2), Brownhills, Streetly Lichfield Wards: Burntwood (X4), Hammerwich, Highfield, Little Aston, Shenstone
Still working on the substantial knock on impacts but broadly South Staffs largely stays the same, Lichfield gains Rugeley, Cannock takes Penkridge and Stafford takes territory from Stone.
Black country looks to work pretty well with a cross borough Walsall - Sandwell seat centred on Great Barr.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,023
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 8, 2021 22:39:02 GMT
What we don’t yet know (and I would suggest needs consideration by those proposing Black Country plans) is whether the BCE will be keen to maintain Sandwell as a single 3-seat borough, and how awful the knock-on effects of that for other boroughs would have to be for them to accept crossing the boundary.
Essentially, is a “Halesowen and Half of Stourbridge” constituency terrible enough to convince them to cross the Sandwell-Dudley boundary?
I’ve not got a strong preference for either, but in other parts of the country there seems to be a substantial preference given to allocating whole numbers of seats to individual boroughs (Bradford, Sutton, Wandsworth etc).
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 8, 2021 22:49:28 GMT
I did a close to standalone 11 seat Staffordshire (just keeping Kinver for my Stourbridge seat) and while the north of the county is still sub optimal the rest worked much better with Cannock, Burton, Lichfield, South Staffs, Stafford and Tamworth largely unchanged. The trouble with Kingswinford + South Staffs seat is that it leaves the Great Wyrley area with no obvious home and either causes knock problems with currently good seats or results a West Staffordshire seat that is far from ideal. Unfortunately getting Birmingham/Dudley/Sandwell/Solihull to work as 19 seats is really problematic. They come to about 18.4 quotas (more like 18.5 including Kinver + the Hagley wards) and so it should be doable. What I quickly found however was that while adding one Birmingham ward to a Sandwell seat (North Edgbaston) works very well once you add anymore everything else in Birmingham becomes highly problematic. It isn't impossible but unless you are going to split wards it is a right mess. This is a real pity because not only does it allow an improved Staffordshire but it also allows for much better Dudley seats Dudley North: Current seat + Coseley Dudley South: Current seat + Dudley Wood/Quarry Bank Stourbridge: Current seat - Dudley Wood/Quarry Bank + Kinver + Hagley (X2) The problem with that last arrangement (besides the other problems you describe in Birmingham) is that it's going to be really hard to sell a plan that crosses the boundaries of three (ceremonial) counties. I have long been an advocate of adding Hagley to Stourbridge and others have advocated Kinver but adding both seems like a non-starter. In fact I'm increasingly of the view that a ward split would be a better option there with the 'Cradley South' section of Hayley Green & Cradley South (which is almost completely detached from the rest of that ward) being used to bring Stourbridge up to quota. The Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay area does fit perfectly well with Cannock which is the obvious homw. The only problem is that Cannock Chase is in quota as it is so could be left alone, whereas adding this large area means removing others, effectively dismembering the seat. Since Rugeley is separated from Cannock and Hednesford by Cannock Chase and Norton Canes is somewhat separate too, this can be done in a way which leaves Cannock as a reasonably coherent seat even if it is very substantially redrawn I have a completed map that I am okay with based on the Kingswinford / South Staffs crossing but I am far than fully happy with it. I am just playing around with a few different things at the moment, trying some major changes and seeing how things work out rather than just tinkering round the edges. Splitting Dudley Wood and Quarry Bank is another reasonable possibility for getting Stourbridge to quota.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 8, 2021 22:55:07 GMT
What we don’t yet know (and I would suggest needs consideration by those proposing Black Country plans) is whether the BCE will be keen to maintain Sandwell as a single 3-seat borough, and how awful the knock-on effects of that for other boroughs would have to be for them to accept crossing the boundary. Essentially, is a “Halesowen and Half of Stourbridge” constituency terrible enough to convince them to cross the Sandwell-Dudley boundary? I’ve not got a strong preference for either, but in other parts of the country there seems to be a substantial preference given to allocating whole numbers of seats to individual boroughs (Bradford, Sutton, Wandsworth etc). Given that a) They are going to have to cross county / borough boundaries in some places in the West Midlands b) There is currently a seat that cross the Sandwell - Dudley boundary I would certainly hope so.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
|
Post by YL on Feb 9, 2021 8:09:52 GMT
What we don’t yet know (and I would suggest needs consideration by those proposing Black Country plans) is whether the BCE will be keen to maintain Sandwell as a single 3-seat borough, and how awful the knock-on effects of that for other boroughs would have to be for them to accept crossing the boundary. Essentially, is a “Halesowen and Half of Stourbridge” constituency terrible enough to convince them to cross the Sandwell-Dudley boundary? I’ve not got a strong preference for either, but in other parts of the country there seems to be a substantial preference given to allocating whole numbers of seats to individual boroughs (Bradford, Sutton, Wandsworth etc). I assumed that if you are going to respect the Dudley/Sandwell boundary then the obvious way to do it was to have a Halesowen (& Dudley Wood?) seat which curves round the SW corner of Sandwell and avoids the core of Stourbridge (though it might include Wollescote), with one Dudley ward split between the two seats. E.g.: Stourbridge: all wards with "Stourbridge" in the name, Amblecote, Brierley Hill, Wordsley, the Wollescote part of Cradley & Wollescote (NB without the split ward this is 2 electors short of the lower limit) Halesowen & Dudley South: all Dudley wards in current H & RR, Netherton et al, Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood, St Thomas, the Cradley part of Cradley & Wollescote Dudley North: the rest of the borough barring the two Kingswinford wards There are variations which put all of Cradley & Wollescote in the Halesowen seat, split a ward further north (maybe putting the Brierley Hill end of its eponymous ward in the Halesowen seat) and retain St Thomas in the main Dudley seat. None of them feel like the most natural arrangement, but I'm not convinced that double crossing the boundary works brilliantly either. Black Country local geography is always a bit of a mystery to me anyway (and no doubt some will debate how much of this area is really the Black Country).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 9, 2021 9:59:00 GMT
What we don’t yet know (and I would suggest needs consideration by those proposing Black Country plans) is whether the BCE will be keen to maintain Sandwell as a single 3-seat borough, and how awful the knock-on effects of that for other boroughs would have to be for them to accept crossing the boundary. Essentially, is a “Halesowen and Half of Stourbridge” constituency terrible enough to convince them to cross the Sandwell-Dudley boundary? I’ve not got a strong preference for either, but in other parts of the country there seems to be a substantial preference given to allocating whole numbers of seats to individual boroughs (Bradford, Sutton, Wandsworth etc). I assumed that if you are going to respect the Dudley/Sandwell boundary then the obvious way to do it was to have a Halesowen (& Dudley Wood?) seat which curves round the SW corner of Sandwell and avoids the core of Stourbridge (though it might include Wollescote), with one Dudley ward split between the two seats. E.g.: Stourbridge: all wards with "Stourbridge" in the name, Amblecote, Brierley Hill, Wordsley, the Wollescote part of Cradley & Wollescote (NB without the split ward this is 2 electors short of the lower limit) Halesowen & Dudley South: all Dudley wards in current H & RR, Netherton et al, Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood, St Thomas, the Cradley part of Cradley & Wollescote Dudley North: the rest of the borough barring the two Kingswinford wards There are variations which put all of Cradley & Wollescote in the Halesowen seat, split a ward further north (maybe putting the Brierley Hill end of its eponymous ward in the Halesowen seat) and retain St Thomas in the main Dudley seat. None of them feel like the most natural arrangement, but I'm not convinced that double crossing the boundary works brilliantly either. Black Country local geography is always a bit of a mystery to me anyway (and no doubt some will debate how much of this area is really the Black Country). Well, if you're going to extend Halesowen in the direction of Dudley Wood, which I agree is a good pragmatic solution, then there's no need to fiddle with ward splits: the Halesowen wards (incl Belle Vale) plus Cradley Heath plus Netherton, Quarry Bank and Brierley Hill gives us a 'Halesowen & Brierley Hill' seat that comes in at 70618. This also has the merit of requiring only a single ward from Sandwell, leaving the remaining 23 wards plus a single compensating Dudley ward (Coseley E), with plenty of satisfactory ways of dividing into three. Further north, I think Pete Whitehead has summed up the situation admirably: the basic problem is what to do with the Gt Wyrley area. Its most logical link is with Cannock but this involves completely disrupting a perfectly satisfactory seat that need otherwise lose only a single ward. The alternative is to keep Cannock almost unchanged, but then Gt Wyrley finds itself at the southern end of a somewhat sprawling W Staffs seat. There's a decent case either way, but personally, I prefer the latter approach, not only because it is kinder to Cannock but also because it allows a very neat and compact seat combining Stafford and Stone in the middle of the county.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 9, 2021 11:43:24 GMT
For anyone desperate trying to avoid crossing the Sandwell - Dudley border I would say the following combination is the best of a bad set of options
2 X Kingswinford wards into South Staffs
Dudley: Current Dudley North + Coseley East Halesowen: Halesowen (X4), Cradley and Wollescote, QB and DW, Netherton (etc), Lye (splitting the Stourbridge North and Lye ward) Stourbridge: Rest of the borough.
Sandwell goes into 3 whole seats easily enough although none of the options are great. You either end up with a seat running from Cradley Heath to Princes End or Cradley Heath to Bearwood.
This leads to at least three and arguably four of the six Dudley and Sandwell seats as being a long, long way from ideal. As I am sure everyone who knows the area is aware the Black Country boundaries were simply drawn to create four authorities with roughly equal numbers. They do not reflect community ties in any significant way. If you look at the area comprising Bilston, Coseley, Darlastan, Tipton and Wednesbury you cover four boroughs but the five towns I have listed have stronger links to one another than to other parts of their respective boroughs. There is absolutely no reason to stick to these arbitrary lines just for the sake of it. Cross borough seats don't just make the numbers work, they make for better seats.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,023
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 9, 2021 12:01:01 GMT
I agree with you completely. The challenge is trying to explain that to the BCE who will most likely have no idea of the reality of community ties and history in the area and will instead see a nice round number 3 next to Sandwell in their list of local authorities.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 9, 2021 12:08:07 GMT
I agree with you completely. The challenge is trying to explain that to the BCE who will most likely have no idea of the reality of community ties and history in the area and will instead see a nice round number 3 next to Sandwell in their list of local authorities. This is where their reluctance to split wards (normally an annoyance) might come to the rescue. Whatever they do they just can't make Dudley work without at least one split ward or one cross borough seat. Of course we simply don't know what they are going to do with Staffordshire. If they don't go for a cross county seat at Kingswinford they can't even contemplate a 3 Sandwell seats and 3 Dudley seats option.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Feb 9, 2021 13:34:37 GMT
Splitting Dudley Wood and Quarry Bank is another reasonable possibility for getting Stourbridge to quota. It's a slightly odd ward to fit in anyway. The Bonk is certainly within the Stourbridge orbit or was, things have changed in terms of employment etc since Merry Hell opened. Dudley Wood never was.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 9, 2021 16:19:36 GMT
I offer up an alternative cross county seat instead of the Kingswinford crossing. Aldridge and Burntwood (72,651)Walsall Wards: Aldridge (X2), Brownhills, Streetly Lichfield Wards: Burntwood (X4), Hammerwich, Highfield, Little Aston, Shenstone Still working on the substantial knock on impacts but broadly South Staffs largely stays the same, Lichfield gains Rugeley, Cannock takes Penkridge and Stafford takes territory from Stone. Black country looks to work pretty well with a cross borough Walsall - Sandwell seat centred on Great Barr. It’s ages since I originally posted, as I did my home region first, but I had a Bloxwich and Great Wyrley seat (including Norton Canes) which made the rest of Staffordshire easy. And yes it meant adding Great Barr to Aldridge, and then a clunky central Black Country seat around Bilston, Darlaston, and Tipton. But it did work!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 9, 2021 17:34:57 GMT
Ive found that it isnt necessary to change the seats in south east Staffs much (including Cannock Chase) if you put the Little Aston ward into Aldridge-Brownhills. I still thats the best thing to do myself.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 9, 2021 18:22:35 GMT
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. You can get 3 compact urban seats by going the Newcastle route. Have SOT south gain Bentilee&Uberley ward. SOT north, entirely within the city boundary, gains Birches Head, Abbey Hulton and Eaton Park wards. The leftover wards join Newcastle, which has to lose Talke and Kidsgrove to Moorlands, and Keele, Silverdale, Audley and Madeley to Stone. Linking up with Newcastle is a better option than Stone or Biddulph since it's a seamless urban area, with good road connections.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 9, 2021 20:25:04 GMT
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. You can get 3 compact urban seats by going the Newcastle route. Have SOT south gain Bentilee&Uberley ward. SOT north, entirely within the city boundary, gains Birches Head, Abbey Hulton and Eaton Park wards. The leftover wards join Newcastle, which has to lose Talke and Kidsgrove to Moorlands, and Keele, Silverdale, Audley and Madeley to Stone. Linking up with Newcastle is a better option than Stone or Biddulph since it's a seamless urban area, with good road connections. I briefly considered something like that but rejected it without even checking out the numbers. Putting the central core of Stoke on Trent in a seat dominated by its smaller neighbour is simply a horrible solution. Also Keele and Silverdale, while hardly part of Newcastle's urban core, really should be kept with the town if possible. While not liking either option I would rather lose peripheral areas on fringes of Stoke to a seat North or South rather than this option.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 9, 2021 21:38:31 GMT
You can get 3 compact urban seats by going the Newcastle route. Have SOT south gain Bentilee&Uberley ward. SOT north, entirely within the city boundary, gains Birches Head, Abbey Hulton and Eaton Park wards. The leftover wards join Newcastle, which has to lose Talke and Kidsgrove to Moorlands, and Keele, Silverdale, Audley and Madeley to Stone. Linking up with Newcastle is a better option than Stone or Biddulph since it's a seamless urban area, with good road connections. I briefly considered something like that but rejected it without even checking out the numbers. Putting the central core of Stoke on Trent in a seat dominated by its smaller neighbour is simply a horrible solution. Also Keele and Silverdale, while hardly part of Newcastle's urban core, really should be kept with the town if possible. While not liking either option I would rather lose peripheral areas on fringes of Stoke to a seat North or South rather than this option. I can also assure Hon Members that the good folk of Betley regard Stone as a place with which they have no connection whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 6, 2021 21:07:10 GMT
Out of interest thought I'd see if it is possible to avoid any cross-county seat for Staffs (11) / W.Mids (27) - in fact it is possible without split wards, though obviously forces other compromises:
|
|