|
Post by greenhert on Mar 6, 2021 23:09:59 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: The Birmingham/Black Country cross-borough seats in particular do not have useful links and clearly look like gerrymanders. Whilst it does avoid a West Midlands/Staffordshire seat, just no with that plan, thank you.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,306
|
Post by YL on Mar 7, 2021 19:19:04 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: Isn't that Birmingham Erdington too small? On the plus side, the 11 seat Staffs seems viable; I'm not enamoured of double crossing the Stoke city boundary, especially with one of the seats stretching so far south, but that can be avoided. 24 seats for Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country seems really challenging, though, and I'd be surprised if there were a decent solution without a ward split or two. (Not that I think we should be that worried about a ward split or two if there are clear benefits.)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,306
|
Post by YL on Mar 8, 2021 10:00:12 GMT
For what it's worth I have found a 24 seat plan for Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country which doesn't have any split wards. I will try to fiddle with it a bit before posting to see if its rather obvious flaws in Birmingham in particular can be improved on.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 8, 2021 11:55:15 GMT
Isn't that Birmingham Erdington too small? Oh gawd, dunno how I overlooked that! I have a couple of schemes which (I think I have double-checked!) are viable - this is probably the least-worst ... But to be honest it was really more out of interest than a serious suggestion Actually surprising how coherent most of the seats are (but obviously a lot of cross-borough seats)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 8, 2021 12:14:30 GMT
This summarizes a few ideas I haven't posted before regarding the urban W Mids.
The two main changes are in Wolverhampton and central/east Brum. Wolverhampton West - 75592. As I had it before with thanks to Pete Whitehead . Wolverhampton East - 70040. Bilston and Willenhall - 76094. Now, I know that Spring Vale ward is not a natural component of this seat but there's a decent road link with Bilston so it's less bad than implied by its terrible appearance on the map. And this arrangement keeps the Bilstons, Darlastons and Willenhalls all together besides allowing a more compact W'ton E seat that includes the Wednesfields.
Walsall North - 76751. Walsall South - 71237.
Sutton Coldfield - 74584. Birmingham Perry Barr - 74979. Birmingham Erdington - 75657. Compared with my previous plan, I've exchanged Aston and Kingstanding between this and the previous seat to produce a tidier boundary, but they can be swapped back if preferred. Birmingham Ladywood - 70030. Slightly more compact than I had it before. Birmingham Hodge Hill - 73267. Redrawn so as not to include any of the Yardley wards. Birmingham Yardley - 75107. This is a long, thin seat on the eastern flank of the city. It has internal links but I am not pretending they are good. But on the credit side, it keeps all three Yardley wards together, uniting them with the Hall Green area, and the seat as a whole actually bears a reasonably close resemblance to the original Worcs parish of Yardley before it was incorporated into Brum; there's even a reminder of this in the name of the Yardley Wood area near the southern end. Birmingham Sparkbrook - 71184. By contrast with Yardley, this is a good compact seat. Birmingham Edgbaston - 71354. The last three seats all as I had them before. Birmingham Selly Oak - 73981. Birmingham Northfield - 69801.
So we now have about five or six ways of assigning ten whole seats to Brum.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,306
|
Post by YL on Mar 8, 2021 12:42:52 GMT
Here's my attempt which doesn't cross the West Midlands county boundary. It does, however, cross the Birmingham city boundary four times, which is at least two too many and arguably four too many given that the boundary doesn't need to be breached at all. (Though Solihull does need a partner, and the case for putting it with Birmingham isn't so much weaker than that for putting it with Warwickshire CC.) Some of the boundaries within the city are awkward as well. The Halesowen/Bartley Green arrangement is borrowed from mattb . Dudley, Sandwell and bits of Birmingham1. Stourbridge (69,793). Probably the obvious Stourbridge seat if not splitting wards or crossing the county boundary. 2. Dudley North (70,711). The current seat plus Coseley East. 3. Dudley South & Cradley Heath (69,776). This arrangement really is only to make the numbers work. 4. Halesowen & Bartley Green (72,025). Likewise. Options which added three Sandwell wards to Halesowen instead of the two Brum ones always seemed to run into trouble. 6. West Bromwich & Handsworth Wood (73,172). 7. Smethwick & Blackheath (71,780). 8. Wednesbury & Tipton (73,384). In fact these last three seats are all fairly close to their predecessors, except for the border crossing into Handsworth. Wolverhampton and Walsall, less Pheasey9. Wolverhampton West (70,011) 10. Wolverhampton North & Willenhall (70,135). Others have suggested excluding Willenhall North from a Willenhall seat isn't as bad as it sounds. 11. Wolverhampton South & Darlaston (72,128). Completing the double crossing. 12. Walsall West & Brownhills (76,140). 13. Walsall East & Aldridge (72,274). Most of Birmingham, Pheasey and Elmdon5. Birmingham Northfield (69,801). As in some other plans. 14. Birmingham Perry Barr (71,842). Includes Pheasey Park Farm ward from Walsall. 15. Birmingham Aston (71,923). 16. Sutton Coldfield (74,854). 17. Birmingham Erdington (70,851). 18. Birmingham Harborne (72,407). The numbers work, but I'm not very convinced. 19. Birmingham Sheldon & Elmdon (70,487). Includes two Solihull wards, and fails to include all of Yardley. 20. Birmingham Edgbaston (70,922). Not really the successor to the old Edgbaston at all. 21. Birmingham Hall Green (71,648). 22. Birmingham Small Heath (70,948). Rest of Solihull23. Solihull (70,837). Gains Blythe, loses Elmdon and Silhill. 24. Meriden (73,254). Loses Blythe.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 8, 2021 12:56:02 GMT
Or this, which is a modification of the plan posted by East Anglian Lefty back on 9 Jan.
It's a long way from minimum change and the M6 crossing isn't great, but in its favour is that all the seats (well, maybe not Northfield) are reasonably compact and it avoids splitting the Yardleys, Bordesleys, Balsall Heaths and Handsworths.
So the key questions are: - Given that we now have umpteen ways of doing it, should we go with ten seats wholly within the B'ham city boundary? (My suggested answer: Yes.)
- If so, do we prefer (a) a plan that pays reasonable respect to the current map, even though some of the seats will be a bit clumsy (but not unworkably so) and some districts of the city will be split; or (b) a plan that jettisons the current map but produces more compact seats that mostly avoid splitting recognized districts of the city? (My suggested answer: Don't mind, am happy to go with the weight of local opinion.)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,306
|
Post by YL on Mar 8, 2021 13:27:14 GMT
Given that we now have umpteen ways of doing it, should we go with ten seats wholly within the B'ham city boundary? (My suggested answer: Yes.) TBH I lean towards "yes" as well, but there is the problem I mentioned in my previous post: Solihull needs a partner, which realistically is going to be either Birmingham or Warwickshire, so one of them needs to have its border breached even though both can happily be done on their own. (Solihull's partner could just about, arithmetically, be Coventry, but that also doesn't need a partner and I don't think anybody has seriously suggested this option.) I can't answer for Birmingham but if it were Sheffield I would generally prefer (b), so that's my instinct for other cities as well.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 8, 2021 14:35:39 GMT
I note that a lot of posts have excluded Silhill from the Solihull seat. While this has arithmetic advantages, it is a nonsense on the ground as Silhill is core Solihull. You have to exclude Shirley West, and either Elmdon of Shirley East (I prefer the latter). It makes no sense to link Solihull with anywhere other than Birmingham, as Warwickshire requires minimum change. And moving Castle Bromwich into Birmingham - a perfectly sensible idea in itself - doesn’t help with east Birmingham. I have two perfectly good schemes for Birmingham including the two Shirley wards.
Meanwhile I still haven’t found a satisfactory solution to Staffordshire plus the Black Country. The only one that works requires linking Stourbridge with Hagley, which messes up the minimum change solution in Worcestershire.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 8, 2021 15:00:51 GMT
Inspired by the YL solution for Walsall/Wolves - can reduce the borough crossings by one and at the same time get rid of the uncomfortable Kingswinford-Cradley Heath link: (for example)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 8, 2021 15:16:48 GMT
I note that a lot of posts have excluded Silhill from the Solihull seat. While this has arithmetic advantages, it is a nonsense on the ground as Silhill is core Solihull. You have to exclude Shirley West, and either Elmdon of Shirley East (I prefer the latter). It makes no sense to link Solihull with anywhere other than Birmingham, as Warwickshire requires minimum change. And moving Castle Bromwich into Birmingham - a perfectly sensible idea in itself - doesn’t help with east Birmingham. I have two perfectly good schemes for Birmingham including the two Shirley wards. Meanwhile I still haven’t found a satisfactory solution to Staffordshire plus the Black Country. The only one that works requires linking Stourbridge with Hagley, which messes up the minimum change solution in Worcestershire. I agree it's very tempting to treat Warwks by itself because then only one ward needs to be moved. But for me, this is outweighed by the value of respecting the Birmingham city boundary; especially since Solihull combines with Warwks quite well. Admittedly it's not minimum change but the wards that are shifted are mostly marginal and each of the eight seats involved remains recognizable (I do suggest one name change but I wouldn't insist on it). I've posted a map upthread somewhere, but: - Solihull and Meriden exchange Lyndon and Elmdon for Knowle and Dorridge (therefore no need to detach Silhill from Solihull); - Meriden loses Blythe to Stratford; - Stratford gains Blythe and loses three small wards on its eastern flank (Snitterfield, Ettington, Brailes); - Kenilworth gains those three wards from Stratford, plus Budbrooke from Warwick & Leamington, and loses its Rugby wards (and I suggest might better be called 'S Warwks' in this arrangement); - Rugby now exactly coincides with the LA, a major plus for this plan;
- Bulkington, displaced from Rugby, joins either N Warwks or Nuneaton, take your pick (I prefer the former).
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 8, 2021 15:39:46 GMT
I note that a lot of posts have excluded Silhill from the Solihull seat. While this has arithmetic advantages, it is a nonsense on the ground as Silhill is core Solihull. You have to exclude Shirley West, and either Elmdon of Shirley East (I prefer the latter). It makes no sense to link Solihull with anywhere other than Birmingham, as Warwickshire requires minimum change. And moving Castle Bromwich into Birmingham - a perfectly sensible idea in itself - doesn’t help with east Birmingham. I have two perfectly good schemes for Birmingham including the two Shirley wards. Meanwhile I still haven’t found a satisfactory solution to Staffordshire plus the Black Country. The only one that works requires linking Stourbridge with Hagley, which messes up the minimum change solution in Worcestershire. I agree it's very tempting to treat Warwks by itself because then only one ward needs to be moved. But for me, this is outweighed by the value of respecting the Birmingham city boundary; especially since Solihull combines with Warwks quite well. Admittedly it's not minimum change but the wards that are shifted are mostly marginal and each of the eight seats involved remains recognizable (I do suggest one name change but I wouldn't insist on it). I've posted a map upthread somewhere, but: - Solihull and Meriden exchange Lyndon and Elmdon for Knowle and Dorridge (therefore no need to detach Silhill from Solihull); - Meriden loses Blythe to Stratford; - Stratford gains Blythe and loses three small wards on its eastern flank (Snitterfield, Ettington, Brailes); - Kenilworth gains those three wards from Stratford, plus Budbrooke from Warwick & Leamington, and loses its Rugby wards (and I suggest might better be called 'S Warwks' in this arrangement); - Rugby now exactly coincides with the LA, a major plus for this plan;
- Bulkington, displaced from Rugby, joins either N Warwks or Nuneaton, take your pick (I prefer the former).
Yes I found this solution too, and it is tempting, but I found Birmingham very difficult on its own.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 8, 2021 16:48:40 GMT
I note that a lot of posts have excluded Silhill from the Solihull seat. While this has arithmetic advantages, it is a nonsense on the ground as Silhill is core Solihull. You have to exclude Shirley West, and either Elmdon of Shirley East (I prefer the latter). It makes no sense to link Solihull with anywhere other than Birmingham, as Warwickshire requires minimum change. And moving Castle Bromwich into Birmingham - a perfectly sensible idea in itself - doesn’t help with east Birmingham. I have two perfectly good schemes for Birmingham including the two Shirley wards. Meanwhile I still haven’t found a satisfactory solution to Staffordshire plus the Black Country. The only one that works requires linking Stourbridge with Hagley, which messes up the minimum change solution in Worcestershire. I agree it's very tempting to treat Warwks by itself because then only one ward needs to be moved. But for me, this is outweighed by the value of respecting the Birmingham city boundary; especially since Solihull combines with Warwks quite well. Admittedly it's not minimum change but the wards that are shifted are mostly marginal and each of the eight seats involved remains recognizable (I do suggest one name change but I wouldn't insist on it). I've posted a map upthread somewhere, but: - Solihull and Meriden exchange Lyndon and Elmdon for Knowle and Dorridge (therefore no need to detach Silhill from Solihull); - Meriden loses Blythe to Stratford; - Stratford gains Blythe and loses three small wards on its eastern flank (Snitterfield, Ettington, Brailes); - Kenilworth gains those three wards from Stratford, plus Budbrooke from Warwick & Leamington, and loses its Rugby wards (and I suggest might better be called 'S Warwks' in this arrangement); - Rugby now exactly coincides with the LA, a major plus for this plan;
- Bulkington, displaced from Rugby, joins either N Warwks or Nuneaton, take your pick (I prefer the former). You can, of course, adjust the Rugby boundary this way if you treat Warwickshire on its own. It's just going to be a bit more difficult persuading the Boundary Commission that this is a superior arrangement, given their preference for minimum change and the need to change a few more wards around in the three south Warwickshire constituencies.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,029
|
Post by ilerda on Mar 8, 2021 17:12:16 GMT
There isn't a way to get 3 seats out of Warwick and Stratford districts without crossing into either Rugby or Solihull is there?
I can't even see a way to do it by only taking Leam Valley from Rugby, so keeping Dunsmore in K&S would be necessary too.
Happy to be proved wrong on either of these.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,306
|
Post by YL on Mar 8, 2021 17:24:47 GMT
There isn't a way to get 3 seats out of Warwick and Stratford districts without crossing into either Rugby or Solihull is there? I can't even see a way to do it by only taking Leam Valley from Rugby, so keeping Dunsmore in K&S would be necessary too. Happy to be proved wrong on either of these. You can do it if you have a Warwick & Leamington seat including Bishop's Tachbrook and Cubbington & Leek Wootton but not Whitnash. I doubt you want to do that though.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 8, 2021 18:09:57 GMT
There isn't a way to get 3 seats out of Warwick and Stratford districts without crossing into either Rugby or Solihull is there? I can't even see a way to do it by only taking Leam Valley from Rugby, so keeping Dunsmore in K&S would be necessary too. Happy to be proved wrong on either of these. It is just about possible on the latter but it requires some really silly seats.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 9, 2021 10:53:41 GMT
Slightly different scheme for Solihull and the West Midlands, starting from the premise of trying to keep Silhill in Solihull, the Chelmsley Wood area united and the three Shirley wards treated as a group: Hodge Hill & Chelmsley Wood (75712) - more compact than it looks, as the bulk of the population of Bickenhill ward is situated at the northern end Solihull (77016) - Meriden is very much the odd one out here Hall Green and Shirley (70853) - I strongly suspect this is pitchfork bait, but it's not like the boundary is particularly obvious on the ground. Highter's Heath isn't a great fit, but the alternatives were Tyseley & Hay Mills (creating an awful elongated shape) or Sparkhill (definitely pitchfork bait) Birmingham Yardley (73975) Birmingham Small Heath (71804) - not very much resemblance to its predecessor seats, but compact and cohesive. The split of Balsall Heath is regrettable and could be fixed by removing Bordesley & Highgate, at the cost of a more awkward shape Birmingham Moseley (72176) - equal parts Hall Green and Selly Oak Birmingham Northfield (75854) - optionally you could swap Bournbrook & Selly Park for Allen's Cross and Frankley Great Park to minimise change, but it leaves Bournbrook isolated in the next seat Birmingham Selly Oak (76798) - probably a bad name, given that aside from Selly Oak it contains no part of the present Birmingham Selly Oak Birmingham Edgbaston & Ladywood (73150) Birmingham Perry Barr (74979) Birmingham Erdington (75657) Sutton Coldfield (74584) I'm not wild on this, but I don't think this orientation has been tried so I thought it was worth seeing if anybody else sees anything they can build upon it.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,029
|
Post by ilerda on Mar 9, 2021 11:00:31 GMT
There isn't a way to get 3 seats out of Warwick and Stratford districts without crossing into either Rugby or Solihull is there? I can't even see a way to do it by only taking Leam Valley from Rugby, so keeping Dunsmore in K&S would be necessary too. Happy to be proved wrong on either of these. It is just about possible on the latter but it requires some really silly seats. You're right. And based on your motivation I've managed to prove myself wrong. Not that I'm too keen on the outcome, although the BCE has proposed worse elsewhere in the past. 1 Warwick and Kenilworth 70372 Yes 2 Leamington and Southam 70370 Yes 3 Stratford on Avon 72197 Yes 4 Rugby 73847 Yes Also stinks of gerrymander. Two nice safe Tory seats covering the Warwick district.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 9, 2021 11:50:48 GMT
It is just about possible on the latter but it requires some really silly seats. You're right. And based on your motivation I've managed to prove myself wrong. Not that I'm too keen on the outcome, although the BCE has proposed worse elsewhere in the past. 1 Warwick and Kenilworth 70372 Yes 2 Leamington and Southam 70370 Yes 3 Stratford on Avon 72197 Yes 4 Rugby 73847 Yes Also stinks of gerrymander. Two nice safe Tory seats covering the Warwick district. Alternatively, you can keep Warwick and Leamington together and pair Stratford with Kenilworth: Stratford & Kenilworth 70609 South Warwickshire 70447 Warwick & Leamington 71883
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Mar 9, 2021 12:37:42 GMT
This was my 11=seat Staffs. It joins 4 Stoke wards with Newcastle, with which there are good road connections and an almost seamless urban area. Those Stoke wards also have a clear boundary with the rest of the city: the main road, canal and railway line. This version, abolishing Stoke central, allows most of the other seats to have little change.
/photo/1
|
|