|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 9, 2021 18:16:02 GMT
This does bring to mind the question of whether there are any settlements which would actually like to be placed in a neighbouring county, and hence could be relied upon to not object to being placed in a cross-county seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 9, 2021 18:19:17 GMT
The "long finger" is mostly Inkberrow ward, and you are proposing adding it to Bromsgrove, which stretches to Hagley. Harvington/Norton only extends that a couple of miles towards Evesham. I left the area over 30 years ago, but I sometimes got a bus from Evesham to Redditch. I lived in Redditch for a brief period in 1995/6. I'm not fond of the place. I'm not proposing adding Inkberrow to Bromsgrove. Much of Brum, including where I live in Birmingham, Yardley used to be in Worcestershire. Worcestershire does need some change, but you can almost certainly leave Worcester, West Worcestershire and Kidderminster alone. Something does have to be done about Redd Itch. I personally have added the two Alvechurch wards and Tardebigge from Bromsgrove and given Bromsgrove Inkberrow. But there are other options which involve various levels of redrawing. The most logical additions to Redditch are the two Studley wards but they are in Warwickshire. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 9, 2021 18:33:12 GMT
This does bring to mind the question of whether there are any settlements which would actually like to be placed in a neighbouring county, and hence could be relied upon to not object to being placed in a cross-county seat. Yarm and Newmarket spring to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 9, 2021 18:41:13 GMT
My plan for Birmingham and Warwickshire (a few ward splits needed):
1. Sutton Coldfield (74,584). Unchanged. Very safe Conservative.
2. Birmingham Northfield (69,801). Contains the Birmingham wards of Druids Heath & Moneyhull, Frankley Great Park, Highter's Heath, King's Norton North, King's Norton South, Longbridge & West Heath, Northfield, and Rubery & Rednal. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour.
3. Birmingham Edgbaston (71,354). Contains the Birmingham wards of Bartley Green, Edgbaston, Harborne, North Edgbaston, and Quinton. Notionally safe Labour.
4. Birmingham Selly Oak (73,981). Contains the Birmingham wards of Allens Cross, Bournville & Cotteridge, Bournbrook & Selly Park, Brandwood & King's Heath, Stirchley, and Weoley & Selly Oak. Notionally safe Labour.
5. Birmingham Hall Green (75,754). Contains the Birmingham wards of Acock's Green, Billesley, Hall Green North, Hall Green South, Moseley, and Tyseley & Hay Mills. Notionally safe Labour.
6. Birmingham Central (75,099). A new seat containing the Birmingham wards of Balsall Heath West, Bordesley Green, Bordesley & Highgate, Ladywood, Small Heath, Sparkhill, and Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East. Notionally ultra-safe Labour.
7. Birmingham Yardley (73,069). Contains the Birmingham wards of Garretts Green, Glebe Farm & Tile Cross, Heartlands, Shard End, Sheldon, South Yardley, Yardley East, and Yardley West & Stetchford. Notionally ultra-safe Labour.
8. Birmingham Handsworth (74,712). Succeeds Birmingham Perry Barr in practice. Contains the Birmingham wards of Aston, Birchfield, Handsworth, Handsworth Wood, Holyhead, Lozells, Newtown, and Soho & Jewellery Quarter. Notionally ultra-safe Labour.
9. Birmingham Perry Barr (approx. 70,000). Succeeds Birmingham Erdington in practice despite the name (cf. post-2010 Birmingham Hall Green being really the successor of Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath). Contains the Birmingham wards of Gravelly Hill, Kingstanding, Nechells (part) Oscott, Perry Barr, Perry Common, and Stockland Green. Notionally safe Labour.
10. Birmingham Erdington (approx. 70,700). Succeeds Birmingham Hodge Hill in practice despite the name. Contains the Birmingham wards of Alum Rock, Bromford & Hodge Hill, Castle Vale, Erdington, Nechells (most), Pype Hayes, Ward End. Notionally very safe Labour.
11. North Warwickshire (70,245). Unchanged. Very safe Conservative.
12. Nuneaton (75,431). Adds Bulkington ward. Notionally very safe Conservative.
13. Rugby (75,851). Now coterminous with borough of Rugby. Notionally safe Conservative.
14. Coventry North West (73,431). Unchanged. Ultra-marginal Labour.
15. Coventry North East (71,786). Loses Lower Stoke ward, gains St Michaels ward. Notionally semi-marginal Labour.
16. Coventry South (72,601). Loses St Michaels ward, gains Lower Stoke ward. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour.
17. Warwick & Leamington (75,440). Loses Budbrook, gains Radford Semele. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour.
18. Kenilworth & Dorridge (approx. 76,000). Succeeds Kenilworth & Southam; loses eastern wards in Stratford-on-Avon, gains rural western wards instead and also (most of ) Dorridge and Knowle wards in Solihull. Notionally ultra-safe Conservative.
19. Stratford-on-Avon (76,256). Loses western rural wards, gains area around Southam. Notionally ultra-safe Conservative.
20. Castle Bromwich (75,452). Succeeds Meriden. Contains the Solihull wards of Bickerhill, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Elmdon, Kingshurst & Fordbridge, Lyndon, Meriden, and Smith's Wood. Notionally very safe Conservative.
21. Solihull (approx. 70,500). Contains the Solihull wards of Blythe, Dorridge (part), Olton, St Alphege, Shirley East, Shirley South, Shirley West, and Silhill. Notionally very safe Conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 9, 2021 18:57:48 GMT
My attempt at Staffs -
 In every plan the unoffending town of Stone seems to be fated to land in a horribly awkward seat, and this is no exception. But it at least does less violence to Cannock than some other suggestions.
Leek - 72482 Stoke N - 70488 Stoke C - 70433 Stoke S - 69783 W Staffs - 73647 Newcastle under Lyme - 71470 Burton - 71630 Lichfield - 71078 Tamworth - 71887 Cannock - 71875 Stafford - 71040
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 9, 2021 19:09:16 GMT
My plan for Worcestershire: ibb.co/pfskfdDMalvern (succeeds West Worcestershire): 73,122 Kidderminster & Stourport (succeeds Wyre Forest): 76,387 Evesham (succeeds Mid Worcestershire): 72,588 Redditch: 74,969 Bromsgrove & Droitwich (succeeds Bromsgrove): 76,158 Worcester (unchanged): 73,928 |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jan 9, 2021 19:14:19 GMT
So far, I've liked 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️'s Staffordshire the most, apart from the Cannock violence and the Stoke Central protrusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 9, 2021 19:18:45 GMT
My plan for Birmingham and Warwickshire (a few ward splits needed): 1. Sutton Coldfield (74,584). Unchanged. Very safe Conservative. 2. Birmingham Northfield (69,801). Contains the Birmingham wards of Druids Heath & Moneyhull, Frankley Great Park, Highter's Heath, King's Norton North, King's Norton South, Longbridge & West Heath, Northfield, and Rubery & Rednal. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour. 3. Birmingham Edgbaston (71,354). Contains the Birmingham wards of Bartley Green, Edgbaston, Harborne, North Edgbaston, and Quinton. Notionally safe Labour. 4. Birmingham Selly Oak (73,981). Contains the Birmingham wards of Allens Cross, Bournville & Cotteridge, Bournbrook & Selly Park, Brandwood & King's Heath, Stirchley, and Weoley & Selly Oak. Notionally safe Labour. 5. Birmingham Hall Green (75,754). Contains the Birmingham wards of Acock's Green, Billesley, Hall Green North, Hall Green South, Moseley, and Tyseley & Hay Mills. Notionally safe Labour. 6. Birmingham Central (75,099). A new seat containing the Birmingham wards of Balsall Heath West, Bordesley Green, Bordesley & Highgate, Ladywood, Small Heath, Sparkhill, and Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East. Notionally ultra-safe Labour. 7. Birmingham Yardley (73,069). Contains the Birmingham wards of Garretts Green, Glebe Farm & Tile Cross, Heartlands, Shard End, Sheldon, South Yardley, Yardley East, and Yardley West & Stetchford. Notionally ultra-safe Labour. 8. Birmingham Handsworth (74,712). Succeeds Birmingham Perry Barr in practice. Contains the Birmingham wards of Aston, Birchfield, Handsworth, Handsworth Wood, Holyhead, Lozells, Newtown, and Soho & Jewellery Quarter. Notionally ultra-safe Labour. 9. Birmingham Perry Barr (approx. 70,000). Succeeds Birmingham Erdington in practice despite the name (cf. post-2010 Birmingham Hall Green being really the successor of Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath). Contains the Birmingham wards of Gravelly Hill, Kingstanding, Nechells (part) Oscott, Perry Barr, Perry Common, and Stockland Green. Notionally safe Labour. 10. Birmingham Erdington (approx. 70,700). Succeeds Birmingham Hodge Hill in practice despite the name. Contains the Birmingham wards of Alum Rock, Bromford & Hodge Hill, Castle Vale, Erdington, Nechells (most), Pype Hayes, Ward End. Notionally very safe Labour. 11. North Warwickshire (70,245). Unchanged. Very safe Conservative. 12. Nuneaton (75,431). Adds Bulkington ward. Notionally very safe Conservative. 13. Rugby (75,851). Now coterminous with borough of Rugby. Notionally safe Conservative. 14. Coventry North West (73,431). Unchanged. Ultra-marginal Labour. 15. Coventry North East (71,786). Loses Lower Stoke ward, gains St Michaels ward. Notionally semi-marginal Labour. 16. Coventry South (72,601). Loses St Michaels ward, gains Lower Stoke ward. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour.17. Warwick & Leamington (75,440). Loses Budbrook, gains Radford Semele. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour. 18. Kenilworth & Dorridge (approx. 76,000). Succeeds Kenilworth & Southam; loses eastern wards in Stratford-on-Avon, gains rural western wards instead and also (most of ) Dorridge and Knowle wards in Solihull. Notionally ultra-safe Conservative. 19. Stratford-on-Avon (76,256). Loses western rural wards, gains area around Southam. Notionally ultra-safe Conservative. 20. Castle Bromwich (75,452). Succeeds Meriden. Contains the Solihull wards of Bickerhill, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Elmdon, Kingshurst & Fordbridge, Lyndon, Meriden, and Smith's Wood. Notionally very safe Conservative. 21. Solihull (approx. 70,500). Contains the Solihull wards of Blythe, Dorridge (part), Olton, St Alphege, Shirley East, Shirley South, Shirley West, and Silhill. Notionally very safe Conservative. I highly doubt that is notionally Labour on 2019 numbers |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 9, 2021 19:19:40 GMT
My plan for Worcestershire: ibb.co/pfskfdDMalvern (succeeds West Worcestershire): 73,122 Kidderminster & Stourport (succeeds Wyre Forest): 76,387 Evesham (succeeds Mid Worcestershire): 72,588 Redditch: 74,969 Bromsgrove & Droitwich (succeeds Bromsgrove): 76,158 Worcester (unchanged): 73,928 All you need do is switch 2 wards (Dodderhill and Harvington) from Mid Worcs to Redditch.
Why complicate life?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 9, 2021 19:20:08 GMT
This does bring to mind the question of whether there are any settlements which would actually like to be placed in a neighbouring county, and hence could be relied upon to not object to being placed in a cross-county seat. Yarm and Newmarket spring to mind. I'd argue Yarm doesn't count, as it effectively did get placed in a neighbouring county and still hasn't dealt with it. I seem to remember one of the abortive reviews tried to put Newmarket in a Cambridgeshire seat and there were a lot of complaints, so I'm not sure that one works either. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 9, 2021 19:35:30 GMT
My plan for Worcestershire: ibb.co/pfskfdDMalvern (succeeds West Worcestershire): 73,122 Kidderminster & Stourport (succeeds Wyre Forest): 76,387 Evesham (succeeds Mid Worcestershire): 72,588 Redditch: 74,969 Bromsgrove & Droitwich (succeeds Bromsgrove): 76,158 Worcester (unchanged): 73,928 All you need do is switch 2 wards (Dodderhill and Harvington) from Mid Worcs to Redditch.
Why complicate life?
To improve intra-constituency connectivity, primarily. Droitwich connects better to Bromsgrove than to Evesham. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 9, 2021 19:44:14 GMT
My plan for Birmingham and Warwickshire (a few ward splits needed): 1. Sutton Coldfield (74,584). Unchanged. Very safe Conservative. 2. Birmingham Northfield (69,801). Contains the Birmingham wards of Druids Heath & Moneyhull, Frankley Great Park, Highter's Heath, King's Norton North, King's Norton South, Longbridge & West Heath, Northfield, and Rubery & Rednal. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour. 3. Birmingham Edgbaston (71,354). Contains the Birmingham wards of Bartley Green, Edgbaston, Harborne, North Edgbaston, and Quinton. Notionally safe Labour. 4. Birmingham Selly Oak (73,981). Contains the Birmingham wards of Allens Cross, Bournville & Cotteridge, Bournbrook & Selly Park, Brandwood & King's Heath, Stirchley, and Weoley & Selly Oak. Notionally safe Labour. 5. Birmingham Hall Green (75,754). Contains the Birmingham wards of Acock's Green, Billesley, Hall Green North, Hall Green South, Moseley, and Tyseley & Hay Mills. Notionally safe Labour. 6. Birmingham Central (75,099). A new seat containing the Birmingham wards of Balsall Heath West, Bordesley Green, Bordesley & Highgate, Ladywood, Small Heath, Sparkhill, and Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East. Notionally ultra-safe Labour. 7. Birmingham Yardley (73,069). Contains the Birmingham wards of Garretts Green, Glebe Farm & Tile Cross, Heartlands, Shard End, Sheldon, South Yardley, Yardley East, and Yardley West & Stetchford. Notionally ultra-safe Labour. 8. Birmingham Handsworth (74,712). Succeeds Birmingham Perry Barr in practice. Contains the Birmingham wards of Aston, Birchfield, Handsworth, Handsworth Wood, Holyhead, Lozells, Newtown, and Soho & Jewellery Quarter. Notionally ultra-safe Labour. 9. Birmingham Perry Barr (approx. 70,000). Succeeds Birmingham Erdington in practice despite the name (cf. post-2010 Birmingham Hall Green being really the successor of Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath). Contains the Birmingham wards of Gravelly Hill, Kingstanding, Nechells (part) Oscott, Perry Barr, Perry Common, and Stockland Green. Notionally safe Labour. 10. Birmingham Erdington (approx. 70,700). Succeeds Birmingham Hodge Hill in practice despite the name. Contains the Birmingham wards of Alum Rock, Bromford & Hodge Hill, Castle Vale, Erdington, Nechells (most), Pype Hayes, Ward End. Notionally very safe Labour. 11. North Warwickshire (70,245). Unchanged. Very safe Conservative. 12. Nuneaton (75,431). Adds Bulkington ward. Notionally very safe Conservative. 13. Rugby (75,851). Now coterminous with borough of Rugby. Notionally safe Conservative. 14. Coventry North West (73,431). Unchanged. Ultra-marginal Labour. 15. Coventry North East (71,786). Loses Lower Stoke ward, gains St Michaels ward. Notionally semi-marginal Labour. 16. Coventry South (72,601). Loses St Michaels ward, gains Lower Stoke ward. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour.17. Warwick & Leamington (75,440). Loses Budbrook, gains Radford Semele. Notionally ultra-marginal Labour. 18. Kenilworth & Dorridge (approx. 76,000). Succeeds Kenilworth & Southam; loses eastern wards in Stratford-on-Avon, gains rural western wards instead and also (most of ) Dorridge and Knowle wards in Solihull. Notionally ultra-safe Conservative. 19. Stratford-on-Avon (76,256). Loses western rural wards, gains area around Southam. Notionally ultra-safe Conservative. 20. Castle Bromwich (75,452). Succeeds Meriden. Contains the Solihull wards of Bickerhill, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Elmdon, Kingshurst & Fordbridge, Lyndon, Meriden, and Smith's Wood. Notionally very safe Conservative. 21. Solihull (approx. 70,500). Contains the Solihull wards of Blythe, Dorridge (part), Olton, St Alphege, Shirley East, Shirley South, Shirley West, and Silhill. Notionally very safe Conservative. I highly doubt that is notionally Labour on 2019 numbers I don't have sampling figures from either ward, but whilst St Michaels will almost certainly have had a higher proportion of Labour voters (and lower proportion of Conservatives), Lower Stoke will have had a higher numerical turnout - which might cancel that out. Whilst it's more likely than not that such a seat would have been Conservative in 2019 it's not certain. And most attempts to calculate notionals aren't really sophisticated enough to pick up the differences in Labour & Conservative voter numbers between individual wards. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 9, 2021 19:46:02 GMT
All you need do is switch 2 wards (Dodderhill and Harvington) from Mid Worcs to Redditch.
Why complicate life?
To improve intra-constituency connectivity, primarily. Droitwich connects better to Bromsgrove than to Evesham. Maybe, if we were starting from scratch. But we're not; we're supposed to have regard to the current map. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 9, 2021 19:52:24 GMT
Notionals have probably never been less useful so I wouldn't fret greatly about it.
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by WJ on Jan 14, 2021 9:06:44 GMT
Here's a first draft of Shropshire. North Shropshire (77,052) Loses Hosnet and Cheswardine to The Wrekin Shrewsbury (75,139) Loses Burnell and Severn Valley to Ludlow (thus losing the "and Atcham" part of the name)
The Wrekin (76,143) Gains Hosnet and Cheswardine from North Shropshire Loses part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank to Telford (ward currently split)
Telford (70,768) Gains part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank from The Wrekin (ward currently split)
Ludlow (77,034) Gains Burnell and Severn Valley from Shrewsbury and Atcham Note: I've posted a map, but it only seems to be showing up for me in the edit window, not the display one.
I much prefer these March 2020 electorates as they mean the county of Shropshire remains whole. My own Shropshire plan is quite similar to yours, however I have made a couple of extra changes to even the electorates slightly. North Shropshire (73,270) Loses Shawbury, Hodnet and Cheswardine to East Shropshire Shrewsbury (75,444) Loses Burnell and Rea Valley to Ludlow East Shropshire (75,415) Gains Shawbury, Hodnet and Cheswardine from North Shropshire Loses part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank to Telford (ward currently split) Loses Donnington to Telford Telford (75,179) Gains part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank from East Shropshire (ward currently split) Gains Donnington from East Shropshire Ludlow (76,729) Gains Rea Valley and Severn Valley from Shrewsbury Despite keeping Atcham in this proposal, the name is still dropped from the constituency. "The Wrekin" is retired in favour of East Shropshire. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 14, 2021 10:27:03 GMT
Here's a first draft of Shropshire. North Shropshire (77,052) Loses Hosnet and Cheswardine to The Wrekin Shrewsbury (75,139) Loses Burnell and Severn Valley to Ludlow (thus losing the "and Atcham" part of the name)
The Wrekin (76,143) Gains Hosnet and Cheswardine from North Shropshire Loses part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank to Telford (ward currently split)
Telford (70,768) Gains part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank from The Wrekin (ward currently split)
Ludlow (77,034) Gains Burnell and Severn Valley from Shrewsbury and Atcham Note: I've posted a map, but it only seems to be showing up for me in the edit window, not the display one.
I much prefer these March 2020 electorates as they mean the county of Shropshire remains whole. My own Shropshire plan is quite similar to yours, however I have made a couple of extra changes to even the electorates slightly. North Shropshire (73,270) Loses Shawbury, Hodnet and Cheswardine to East Shropshire Shrewsbury (75,444) Loses Burnell and Rea Valley to Ludlow East Shropshire (75,415) Gains Shawbury, Hodnet and Cheswardine from North Shropshire Loses part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank to Telford (ward currently split) Loses Donnington to Telford Telford (75,179) Gains part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank from East Shropshire (ward currently split) Gains Donnington from East Shropshire Ludlow (76,729) Gains Rea Valley and Severn Valley from Shrewsbury Despite keeping Atcham in this proposal, the name is still dropped from the constituency. "The Wrekin" is retired in favour of East Shropshire. I'd go with greenchristian's more minimalist approach, which straightens out the whole county by shifting only four wards. This leaves Telford unchanged apart from relaignment to new wards.
I don't think evening up electorates is a legitimate consideration. The requirement under the rules is to get within the range, not to aim for the middle of the range. |
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by WJ on Jan 14, 2021 10:37:41 GMT
I much prefer these March 2020 electorates as they mean the county of Shropshire remains whole. My own Shropshire plan is quite similar to yours, however I have made a couple of extra changes to even the electorates slightly. North Shropshire (73,270) Loses Shawbury, Hodnet and Cheswardine to East Shropshire Shrewsbury (75,444) Loses Burnell and Rea Valley to Ludlow East Shropshire (75,415) Gains Shawbury, Hodnet and Cheswardine from North Shropshire Loses part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank to Telford (ward currently split) Loses Donnington to Telford Telford (75,179) Gains part of Oakengates and Ketley Bank from East Shropshire (ward currently split) Gains Donnington from East Shropshire Ludlow (76,729) Gains Rea Valley and Severn Valley from Shrewsbury Despite keeping Atcham in this proposal, the name is still dropped from the constituency. "The Wrekin" is retired in favour of East Shropshire. I'd go with greenchristian's more minimalist approach, which straightens out the whole county by shifting only four wards. This leaves Telford unchanged apart from relaignment to new wards.
I don't think evening up electorates is a legitimate consideration. The requirement under the rules is to get within the range, not to aim for the middle of the range. Yeah, I understand that argument. Though I would argue that, while there's no legal requirement, making electorates closer to even is as valid as making as few a changes as possible. It's balancing more extensive changes at fewer intervals with more minor changes more often. And besides, 4 vs 6 ward changes is not that great in the grand scheme of things. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jan 14, 2021 11:05:35 GMT
Minimal change is a valid approach, but in order for it to be logical to follow it it relies on the assumption that the existing situation is a good one.
If things can be made better (on other metrics such as community ties etc) by going beyond minimal change then in my view there is no reason not to take the opportunity to do it.
For example, in the area I know best (Warwickshire), the current situation of having Arley & Whitacre in Nuneaton and Bulkington in Rugby goes against the idea of sticking to local government boundaries and respecting community ties. A minimal change approach would keep them where they are, but in reality it would be better for residents for them to move to North Warwickshire and Nuneaton respectively.
Just because the BCE did something 10 years ago it doesn't mean it was a good idea and that it should be maintained going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 14, 2021 11:50:48 GMT
Well, yes and no.
You have more justification for change in Warwickshire because of the need to accommodate either one or two wards squeezed out of Solihull. Assuming these wards are on the south side of Solihull, and bearing in mind the need also to remove a ward from Warwick & Leamington, then you have too many electors to load into the Stratford and Kenilworth seats, and the obvious way of resolving this, which also respects district boundaries, is to shift the southern boundary of the Rugby seat so that it aligns with the district boundary. And this has the effect of displacing Bulkington.
Therefore, add Bulkington either to Nuneaton or (my preference) to N Warwks; in either case, leaving the other seat unchanged.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 14, 2021 12:01:56 GMT
Minimal change is a valid approach, but in order for it to be logical to follow it it relies on the assumption that the existing situation is a good one. If things can be made better (on other metrics such as community ties etc) by going beyond minimal change then in my view there is no reason not to take the opportunity to do it. For example, in the area I know best (Warwickshire), the current situation of having Arley & Whitacre in Nuneaton and Bulkington in Rugby goes against the idea of sticking to local government boundaries and respecting community ties. A minimal change approach would keep them where they are, but in reality it would be better for residents for them to move to North Warwickshire and Nuneaton respectively. Just because the BCE did something 10 years ago it doesn't mean it was a good idea and that it should be maintained going forward. Ditto Stannington in Sheffield Hallam. Because the PBC made a bodge last time the rules pre-assume that bodge should stay this time. |
|
