|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 19, 2021 19:50:41 GMT
I have not been posting, not because I am not interested, but because I want to produce my own solutions before looking at other, perhaps better, ideas. Birmingham/Solihull is easy and produces a number of possibilities, of which I am satisfied with my choice. My problem is with Staffordshire and the Black Country. Like everyone else I start with the obvious 5 seat split in Wolverhampton and Walsall, but this leaves me only 2 Dudley wards to drop into Staffordshire, and this isn’t enough to produce any solution, let alone a good one. Fiddling around with the Black Country I have a messy solution that enables me to drop 4 Walsall wards into Staffordshire which permits quite a nice Staffordshire solution (so long as you don’t mind Stoke South hoovering up surpluses from all 3 of Newcastle, Stafford, and Moorlands.
What I really need and can’t find at the moment is a solution that enables me to drop 3 Dudley wards into Staffordshire, which I think will enable a Staffordshire solution that is not too sub-optimal without giving up and stealing some wards from Shropshire. Having decided to leave this for a while I have got hung up on very similar problems with Plymouth and Devon instead. Perhaps I will have a go at East Region instead which looks easier......
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 20:41:26 GMT
I've come up with another plan for Birmingham and Warwickshire. I always wanted to put Castle Bromwich into a Birmingham seat but hadn't found a way to do it. The solution is to do Shirley West as well. Some people may not approve of two borough crossings like that but it's fine by me - I like the Birmingham seats that result. As always now it's possible I'm repeating what somebody else has already done
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 19, 2021 20:57:17 GMT
I've come up with another plan for Birmingham and Warwickshire. I always wanted to put Castle Bromwich into a Birmingham seat but hadn't found a way to do it. The solution is to do Shirley West as well. Some people may not approve of two borough crossings like that but it's fine by me - I like the Birmingham seats that result. As always now it's possible I'm repeating what somebody else has already done Mine on previous page has 8 seats identical to this - your 4 northern Brum seats look prettier than mine but much more change from existing seats
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jan 19, 2021 22:10:44 GMT
To give an indication of how well things are going, my current Stourbridge seat includes parts of Bromsgrove, South Staffs and Shropshire, and only parts of Stourbridge. Well, I can understand the first two. But Shropshire, would be a big no. If I had to say what was Stourbridge Amblecote Cradley & Wollescote (or at least the Wollescote end) Lye & Stourbridge North Norton Pedmore & Stourbridge East Wollaston & Stourbridge Town then The two Hagleys Kinver (or at least the bits up to the Stewponey) Brierley Hill (Well Audnam and Hollybush) Quarry Bank (but NEVER Dudley Wood) iverley, Churchill, Holy Cross and Clent (but not Blakedown or Belbroughton) Gallowstree and really, really pushing it Enville village.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 20, 2021 8:56:54 GMT
Here are the current results of my battle with Staffordshire.
(image deleted)
For these purposes, I assume that one Dudley ward (probably Brierley Hill, which the Commission have accepted splitting before) is split between Halesowen and Stourbridge. This has a number of advantages, meaning that there is no need to cross into Worcestershire or Birmingham or disturb the solutions I'm happy with in the other Black Country boroughs. OTOH it does mean that I have only two Dudley wards (the two with Kingswinford in the name) to help with Staffs, which leaves numbers pretty tight.
4. Kingswinford & South Staffordshire (73,268). Includes those two Dudley wards at the southern end (not shown). 5. Cannock Chase (71,530). Loses Norton Canes, gains a random rural ward. 6. Tamworth (71,686). Gains some bits of wards already partly in it, loses Mease Valley. 7. Lichfield (70,071). Some ward re-alignment, and gians Norton Canes. 8. Burton (69,771). Loses Uttoxeter and points north, gains Mease Valley. 9. Stafford (70,537). Loses areas south and east of Stafford town, gains the western parts of the old Stone seat. 10. Stone & Penkridge (70,051). A rather sprawling seat containing the parts of Stafford and South Staffs districts that didn't fit elsewhere. 11. Leek & Uttoxeter (71,421). Staffordshire Moorlands loses Biddulph and some Stoke fringe, and takes Uttoxeter from Burton. 12. Newcastle under Lyme (70,025). Gains Madeley & Betley. 13. Stoke on Trent North & Biddulph (70,923). Gains Biddulph and some eastern Stoke fringe in Staffs Moorlands, loses some urban core. This is the only seat crossing the Stoke boundary. 14. Stoke on Trent Central (71,325). Loses Bentilee & Ubberley, gains much of the cores of Burslem and Tunstall. 15. Stoke on Trent South (70,795). Gains Benitlee & Ubberley.
This would look a lot better with Mease Valley in Lichfield and Colton & the Ridwares in Burton, but that leaves Cannock Chase short by 158. It could take Longdon from Lichfield instead, but that leaves Lichfield a very odd shape with the Burntwood part virtually disconnected. Perhaps there's a better solution.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 20, 2021 9:37:28 GMT
This is fairly similar to the mess I came up with when trying to do Staffs with 2 Dudley wards. You need 3 to make a sensible map.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 20, 2021 9:54:02 GMT
My plan (upthread) achieves 3 Dudley wards in S.Staffs - but it makes a bit of a mess of the Black Country
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jan 20, 2021 10:36:33 GMT
This is fairly similar to the mess I came up with when trying to do Staffs with 2 Dudley wards. You need 3 to make a sensible map. With 4 Dudley wards, you can get an even better map: ibb.co/7y4fTXcBurton (75460) unchanged Cannock Chase (75582) unchanged and coterminous with District Kingswinford & Wombourne (69964) (Dudley South) loses Brierley Hill, Netherton Woodside & St Andrews; gains all South Staffordshire lost by West Staffordshire Lichfield (73844) loses Whittington & Streethay Newcastle-under-Lyme (75768) gains all electors in Newcastle-under-Lyme lost by Stone Stafford (75046) loses all South Staffordshire electors, Seighford & Church Eaton; gains Milwich, St Michaels & Stonefield, Walton Staffordshire Moorlands (70113) loses Newchapel & Mow Cop; gains Cheadle x 3 Stoke on Trent Central (70550) gains all Stoke on Trent electors lost by Stoke on Trent North and Stoke on Trent South Stoke on Trent North (69821) loses Sneyd Green; gains Newchapel & Mow Cop Stoke on Trent South (69831) loses Fenton x 2, Meir Hay, Sandford Hill; gains Barlaston, Fulford, Swynnerton & Oulton, Checkley, Forsbrook Tamworth (74742) gains Whittington & Streethay West Staffordshire (70327) (South Staffordshire) loses Himley & Swindon, Kinver, Perton x 3, Trysull & Seisdon, Wombourne x 3; gains Eccleshall, Gnosall & Woodseaves, Seighford & Church Eaton, all South Staffordshire wards lost by Stafford
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 10:59:31 GMT
This is fairly similar to the mess I came up with when trying to do Staffs with 2 Dudley wards. You need 3 to make a sensible map. With 4 Dudley wards, you can get an even better map: ibb.co/7y4fTXcBurton (75460) unchanged Cannock Chase (75582) unchanged and coterminous with District Kingswinford & Wombourne (69964) (Dudley South) loses Brierley Hill, Netherton Woodside & St Andrews; gains all South Staffordshire lost by West Staffordshire Lichfield (73844) loses Whittington & Streethay Newcastle-under-Lyme (75768) gains all electors in Newcastle-under-Lyme lost by Stone Stafford (75046) loses all South Staffordshire electors, Seighford & Church Eaton; gains Milwich, St Michaels & Stonefield, Walton Staffordshire Moorlands (70113) loses Newchapel & Mow Cop; gains Cheadle x 3 Stoke on Trent Central (70550) gains all Stoke on Trent electors lost by Stoke on Trent North and Stoke on Trent South Stoke on Trent North (69821) loses Sneyd Green; gains Newchapel & Mow Cop Stoke on Trent South (69831) loses Fenton x 2, Meir Hay, Sandford Hill; gains Barlaston, Fulford, Swynnerton & Oulton, Checkley, Forsbrook Tamworth (74742) gains Whittington & Streethay West Staffordshire (70327) (South Staffordshire) loses Himley & Swindon, Kinver, Perton x 3, Trysull & Seisdon, Wombourne x 3; gains Eccleshall, Gnosall & Woodseaves, Seighford & Church Eaton, all South Staffordshire wards lost by Stafford How does the Black Country map work with taking out 4 Dudley wards?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 11:04:48 GMT
My Staffs is similar to YL though I can't claim to be happy with the butchering of Cannock Chase. This involves two Kingswinford wards. I've also found a way to avoid adding Hagley to Stourbridge by rotating the Dudley and Stourbridge seats but it is fairly ugly (not shown on this map)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 13:25:24 GMT
Here's my Black Country in detail showing the non-Hagley (but ugly) alternative in Stourbridge
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 20, 2021 14:33:57 GMT
First successful attempt in terms of making the numbers work although some of the seats aren't pretty. Deliberately haven't looked at anyone else's plans yet because I wouldn't be able not to be influenced by them if I did. Comments welcome. Going to look at the other plans on the thread now. Central area: North: South:
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 20, 2021 14:42:06 GMT
It's interesting that quite a few of the plans here involve multiple ward swaps in Coventry when there are six different ways to get the city's seats in quota with a single ward swap.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 20, 2021 14:48:21 GMT
Second attempt at Staffordshire, again with two Kingswinford wards: 4. Kingswinford & South Staffordshire (70,580). Now completely sheds the Great Wyrley/Cheslyn Hay area. 5. Cannock (73,507). Loses Rugeley and Norton Canes, gains Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay. I'd prefer to keep the current seat as it is, but I don't think this is completely terrible; the shape looks a bit odd but the communication lines are in the right place. 6. Tamworth (71,887). Could alternatively include the south of Lichfield district rather than the east. 7. Lichfield (71,423). Includes Norton Canes, which doesn't look like such a bad fit with the Burntwood/Chasetown area. 8. Burton (70,182). Loses Uttoxeter. There's an orphan Lichfield ward, but it looks better than the version I had before. 9. Stafford (70,537). Loses areas south and east of Stafford town, gains the western parts of the old Stone seat. 10. Stone & Rugeley (70,472). Or "Mid Staffordshire", if you like that sort of name (and it has a fair amount in common with the pre-1997 seat of that name). 11. Leek & Uttoxeter (71,421). Staffordshire Moorlands loses Biddulph and some Stoke fringe, and takes Uttoxeter from Burton. 12. Newcastle under Lyme (70,025). Gains Madeley & Betley. 13. Stoke on Trent North & Biddulph (70,923). Gains Biddulph and some eastern Stoke fringe in Staffs Moorlands, loses some urban core. This is the only seat crossing the Stoke boundary. 14. Stoke on Trent Central (71,325). Loses Bentilee & Ubberley, gains much of the cores of Burslem and Tunstall. 15. Stoke on Trent South (70,795). Gains Benitlee & Ubberley.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 20, 2021 14:48:41 GMT
It's interesting that quite a few of the plans here involve multiple ward swaps in Coventry when there are six different ways to get the city's seats in quota with a single ward swap. I must admit I only spent about 20 seconds on Coventry. I don't know the details of which areas best go together in terms of local ties.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 20, 2021 14:50:53 GMT
Second attempt at Staffordshire, again with two Kingswinford wards: 4. Kingswinford & South Staffordshire (70,580). Now completely sheds the Great Wyrley/Cheslyn Hay area. 5. Cannock (73,507). Loses Rugeley and Norton Canes, gains Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay. I'd prefer to keep the current seat as it is, but I don't think this is completely terrible; the shape looks a bit odd but the communication lines are in the right place. 6. Tamworth (71,887). Could alternatively include the south of Lichfield district rather than the east. 7. Lichfield (71,423). Includes Norton Canes, which doesn't look like such a bad fit with the Burntwood/Chasetown area. 8. Burton (70,182). Loses Uttoxeter. There's an orphan Lichfield ward, but it looks better than the version I had before. 9. Stafford (70,537). Loses areas south and east of Stafford town, gains the western parts of the old Stone seat. 10. Stone & Rugeley (70,472). Or "Mid Staffordshire", if you like that sort of name (and it has a fair amount in common with the pre-1997 seat of that name). 11. Leek & Uttoxeter (71,421). Staffordshire Moorlands loses Biddulph and some Stoke fringe, and takes Uttoxeter from Burton. 12. Newcastle under Lyme (70,025). Gains Madeley & Betley. 13. Stoke on Trent North & Biddulph (70,923). Gains Biddulph and some eastern Stoke fringe in Staffs Moorlands, loses some urban core. This is the only seat crossing the Stoke boundary. 14. Stoke on Trent Central (71,325). Loses Bentilee & Ubberley, gains much of the cores of Burslem and Tunstall. 15. Stoke on Trent South (70,795). Gains Benitlee & Ubberley. I'm just about to study your plan in more detail but I'm curious if people are making big changes to the south-eastern area of Staffordshire, including Cannock Chase, because I for one found that it wasn't necessary to make many significant changes in that area apart from putting Little Aston into Aldridge-Brownhills.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 15:20:00 GMT
It's interesting that quite a few of the plans here involve multiple ward swaps in Coventry when there are six different ways to get the city's seats in quota with a single ward swap. Because the city's boundaries are illogically* drawn in the first place so one may as well take the opportunity to reconfigure the whole arrangement so that the seats reflect a more natural division of the city * Actually not lacking in logic so much as being a fairly blatant pro-Labour gerrymander
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jan 20, 2021 15:20:27 GMT
[/quote]How does the Black Country map work with taking out 4 Dudley wards?[/quote] Extremely neatly. 3 seats in Sandwell. 5 seats in Walsall/Wolverhampton. And we give Greenhert a heart attack with a Dudley that looks like this: ibb.co/P6zbRsTDudley North (70711) gains Coseley East Halesowen & Bartley Green (74748) (Halesowen) loses all Sandwell electors; gains wards lost by Stourbridge, Bartley Green Kingswinford & Wombourne (71768) as previously described Stourbridge (69840) loses Cradley & Wollescote, Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood; gains Brierley Hill, Netherton Woodside & St Andrews
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 20, 2021 15:30:18 GMT
In Wolverhampton and Walsall there are eight 'pairs' of wards where a name element is shared: - Aldridge Central & South + Aldridge North & Walsall Wood
- Bloxwich East + West
- Willenhall North + South (effectively a trio with Short Heath)
- Bentley & Darlaston North + Darlaston South
- Wednesfield North + South
- Bilston North + East
- Tettenhall Wightwick + Regis
- Bushbury North + Bushbury South & Low Hill
I'm aware that some of these are more meaningful than others and that some of the areas concerned in practice extend over larger areas than the ones named. However, this is likely to be the thought of thing the BCE cares about and none of the maps assigning 5 seats to those two boroughs have avoided splitting at least one pair. Here's an attempt to rectify that: Aldridge & Walsall SE 71806 Walsall NW 76182 Willenhall & Wednesfield 74276 Wolverhampton N 75874 Wolverhampton S 71576
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 15:38:13 GMT
Extremely neatly. 3 seats in Sandwell. 5 seats in Walsall/Wolverhampton. And we give Greenhert a heart attack with a Dudley that looks like this: ibb.co/P6zbRsTDudley North (70711) gains Coseley East Halesowen & Bartley Green (74748) (Halesowen) loses all Sandwell electors; gains wards lost by Stourbridge, Bartley Green Kingswinford & Wombourne (71768) as previously described Stourbridge (69840) loses Cradley & Wollescote, Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood; gains Brierley Hill, Netherton Woodside & St Andrews OK that works well and your Staffordshire was very good. Have you managed to make Birmingham work with the loss of Bartley Green? If so you've probably found the answer (Im guess in Sandwell you've gone for Warley gaining Blackheath, West Brom West gaining Rowley and Cradley Heath (Rowley Regis & Tipton) and then exchanging Greets Green & Lyng for the Wednesbury wards with West Bromwich East)
|
|