|
|
Post by islington on Nov 19, 2022 19:36:56 GMT
It's a lot of split wards, but at least each split complies with the BCE guidance (which is more than the BCE can say of its own scheme). Overall it's a huge improvement on the BCE plan and I wish you good luck with it. Are you going to try to do anything about the mess the BCE has made of Rutland and adjoining areas?
We understand the Commission won't want to change more than 5% of the seats at the final stage. We're pushing it with a six seat counterproposal in a 47 seat region. Unpicking the 3 county Rutland & Stamford impacts many more seats. We can tell the Commission that they got Leicestershire and Lincolnshire & Rutland just about right first time. That would involve twelve seats. I can't see a more limited way of doing it. If you or anyone here can, please tell us. No, I know what you mean. The trouble is I didn't think much of the initial scheme either. It seems to me you need to find a way of giving 7 seats to Leics sans Leicester, as suggested by YL and myself and probably others. Fiddling around with Boundary Assistant, though, I did come up with yet another way of doing it (without ward splits):  In this configuration Blaby (I suppose you'd call it) comes in at 77037, only 25 below the maximum, which slightly eases the numbers elsewhere.
Please note I am absolutely 100% not submitting this.
Edited to add: Actually if Hinckley and Mid Leics exchange Forest and Ratby wards it's slightly less ugly and still legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 19, 2022 20:09:48 GMT
We understand the Commission won't want to change more than 5% of the seats at the final stage. We're pushing it with a six seat counterproposal in a 47 seat region. Unpicking the 3 county Rutland & Stamford impacts many more seats. We can tell the Commission that they got Leicestershire and Lincolnshire & Rutland just about right first time. That would involve twelve seats. I can't see a more limited way of doing it. If you or anyone here can, please tell us. No, I know what you mean. The trouble is I didn't think much of the initial scheme either. It seems to me you need to find a way of giving 7 seats to Leics sans Leicester, as suggested by YL and myself and probably others. Fiddling around with Boundary Assistant, though, I did come up with yet another way of doing it (without ward splits): In this configuration Blaby (I suppose you'd call it) comes in at 77037, only 25 below the maximum, which slightly eases the numbers elsewhere.
Please note I am absolutely 100% not submitting this. Edited to add: Actually if Hinckley and Mid Leics exchange Forest and Ratby wards it's slightly less ugly and still legal.
Its actually a pretty good scheme. The only obvious problem is where Charnwood, Blaby and (presumably?) Hinckley meet. I assumed this was forced by the numbers but actually they work if you put Forest in with Charnwood and Ratby, Bagworth & Thornton in Hinckley. I like the fact that with these boundaries, even with an extra seat you can have decent snappy names for each seat without having annoying NW Leicestershire and South Leicestershire seats: Melton, Harborough, Loughborough, Charnwood, Bosworth, Hinckley. I would call your Blaby seat Wigston. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 19, 2022 20:14:47 GMT
Actually, more seriously this time (but only slightly), this isn't entirely crazy. 
It doesn't score very well for respecting LA boundaries but it's pretty good on ensuring that each current seat has a clear successor inheriting well over half of its electorate.
I think it's worth posting the numbers, anyway.
W Leics - 76876. Successor of NW Leics. Loughborough - 76400. Hinckley - 76892. Successor of Bosworth. Mid Leics - 76422. Successor of Charnwood. S Leics - 76346. Harborough - 74810. Melton - 76483. Successor of Rutland & Melton.
Apologies if I've duplicated something posted before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 19, 2022 20:14:56 GMT
Even better  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 19, 2022 20:27:39 GMT
I hadn't seen your edit when I first read your post islington. Your second plan does respect 'existing ties' better but this is a case where existing ties are sub-optimal and should be broken. It makes far more sense for Market Harborough to be linked with the rural areas that make up the bulk of HArborough district and for the suburban/exurban areas of Oadby/Wigston/Blaby/Braunstone to be united in another seat. Also why use all these compass points and the dreaded 'mid' formulation when perfectly good names are available. Your South Leicestershire seat is Blaby. Your West Leicestershire can be Bosworth (regardless that it is mostly drawn from NW Leicestershire). Charnwood is a well established name for that seat which is not radically redrawn and reasonably describes the general area. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 19, 2022 22:08:53 GMT
Actually, more seriously this time (but only slightly), this isn't entirely crazy.
It doesn't score very well for respecting LA boundaries but it's pretty good on ensuring that each current seat has a clear successor inheriting well over half of its electorate.
I think it's worth posting the numbers, anyway.
W Leics - 76876. Successor of NW Leics. Loughborough - 76400. Hinckley - 76892. Successor of Bosworth. Mid Leics - 76422. Successor of Charnwood. S Leics - 76346. Harborough - 74810. Melton - 76483. Successor of Rutland & Melton.
Apologies if I've duplicated something posted before.
Interestingly, the Castle Donnington area was in the Loughborough constituency until 1983, and your Melton constituency is very similar to the 1950-83 boundaries of the historic Melton constituency. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 20, 2022 8:47:12 GMT
Actually, more seriously this time (but only slightly), this isn't entirely crazy. It doesn't score very well for respecting LA boundaries but it's pretty good on ensuring that each current seat has a clear successor inheriting well over half of its electorate. I think it's worth posting the numbers, anyway. W Leics - 76876. Successor of NW Leics. Loughborough - 76400. Hinckley - 76892. Successor of Bosworth. Mid Leics - 76422. Successor of Charnwood. S Leics - 76346. Harborough - 74810. Melton - 76483. Successor of Rutland & Melton.
Apologies if I've duplicated something posted before.
I think that's the version I ended up submitting to the BCE (except for the names of course). The reason I chose that one is that I thought the point about each seat having a clear successor went along with the BCE's preference for minimal change, though I actually agree with Pete Whitehead that if it would really be better to break the link between Oadby & Wigston and Market Harborough, putting the former in a constituency with other Leicester suburbs outside the city boundary. Reading the report, however, it seems they rejected it because they'd got support for their constituencies in the NW of the county (especially from the political parties) and it's that area where there's most change in that plan. Anyway, the thing is that there are actually lots of ways of having seven seats in Leicestershire without Leicester. My suspicion, though, is that whereas some of us on here regard a region close to the limit for a particular number of constituencies (e.g. Leics without Leicester, Notts without Nottingham, Devon) as a challenge, the BCE didn't really try and just assumed that it wouldn't work well and that a border would have to be crossed. In the case of Notts I think the consensus is that they were right, but I'm not convinced by Leics. Also on Leics, don't the revised proposals split both Sileby and Mountsorrel? (Admittedly the latter is an existing constituency boundary.) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 20, 2022 10:02:36 GMT
The other problem is that commissionbrain continues to view Rutland as part of Leicestershire (see Avon, Humberside discussions) so they don't see the problem with their three counties seat.
The posh rural names for the Leicester suburban seats of Blaby South Leicestershire and Oadby & Wigston Harborough are disgusting, of course, but that's a losing battle that I'd stay clear off if trying to get the boundaries changed at the 11th hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 20, 2022 12:21:13 GMT
Actually, more seriously this time (but only slightly), this isn't entirely crazy. It doesn't score very well for respecting LA boundaries but it's pretty good on ensuring that each current seat has a clear successor inheriting well over half of its electorate. I think it's worth posting the numbers, anyway. W Leics - 76876. Successor of NW Leics. Loughborough - 76400. Hinckley - 76892. Successor of Bosworth. Mid Leics - 76422. Successor of Charnwood. S Leics - 76346. Harborough - 74810. Melton - 76483. Successor of Rutland & Melton.
Apologies if I've duplicated something posted before.
I think that's the version I ended up submitting to the BCE (except for the names of course). The reason I chose that one is that I thought the point about each seat having a clear successor went along with the BCE's preference for minimal change, though I actually agree with Pete Whitehead that if it would really be better to break the link between Oadby & Wigston and Market Harborough, putting the former in a constituency with other Leicester suburbs outside the city boundary. Reading the report, however, it seems they rejected it because they'd got support for their constituencies in the NW of the county (especially from the political parties) and it's that area where there's most change in that plan. Anyway, the thing is that there are actually lots of ways of having seven seats in Leicestershire without Leicester. My suspicion, though, is that whereas some of us on here regard a region close to the limit for a particular number of constituencies (e.g. Leics without Leicester, Notts without Nottingham, Devon) as a challenge, the BCE didn't really try and just assumed that it wouldn't work well and that a border would have to be crossed. In the case of Notts I think the consensus is that they were right, but I'm not convinced by Leics. Also on Leics, don't the revised proposals split both Sileby and Mountsorrel? (Admittedly the latter is an existing constituency boundary.) Yes they do, a problem that ideally ought to be rectified. However, I expect YL is correct when he says the plan I suggested is the one he previously submitted, in which case there's no chance that the BCE, having already rejected it, will look it again.
So I've had a go at something that better preserves existing seats in the north and west of the county, and this is what's emerged.
 I don't think we've seen this one before (unless someone wants to tell me different). To some extent it can be described as a hybrid of the initial and revised proposals, and it involves less change to the existing Bosworth, Loughborough and NW Leics seats than in the previous version. It's a shame an orphan ward of Bosworth has to go into NW Leics - I've gone for Twycross but if you think it looks better you can take Barlestone or even Cadeby instead. There are bigger changes in the south of the county, where this scheme looks more like (but in my view better than) the BCE's initial proposals. Unlike them, however, it takes up the idea of separating Oadby and Wigston, with only the former in the Harborough seat; and this leaves a constituency of Blaby & Wigston that is effectively the successor of S Leics.
I'm not currently minded to submit this (but may be open to persuasion), but comments are of course welcome.
NW Leics - 76306. Or W Leics. Bosworth - 74559. Loughborough - 76861. Mid Leics - 76803 Blaby & Wigston - 76149. Harborough - 76727. Melton - 76824.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 20, 2022 13:55:15 GMT
I’m probably in a minority but I thought the original proposals for Leicestershire were pretty good, and produced a much more sensible map.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 20, 2022 15:20:49 GMT
I’m probably in a minority but I thought the original proposals for Leicestershire were pretty good, and produced a much more sensible map. I hadn't paid them any attention before but just checked what they were and I'm with you - I think they're excellent and its a real shame they've reversed them. Also including Aylestone in Leicester West is pretty weird |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 20, 2022 15:59:32 GMT
Well, another possibility is to Leave Melton, Loughborough, Mid Leics and NW Leics as they are on my most recent map. Then, compared to that map, add Normanton to Bosworth (an orphan ward, alas): 76744. Harborough then loses Oadby and gains the Broughton Astley wards plus Stanton and Croft Hill: 75587. Blaby & Wigston (or whatever you want to call it), having lost Normanton, Croft Hill, Stanton and Broughton Astley, gains Oadby: 75104. The three seats affected then look like this:  The overall map is then not a million miles from the BCE's initial scheme, if you're a fan of that. Compared with it: Melton loses one ward (Thurmaston) and gains three (Barrow (thus putting Sileby together), Billesdon and Nevill (both of which are in the current Rutland & Melton seat). Loughborough loses one (Barrow) and gains three (Long Whatton, Kegworth and Daleacre Hill). NW Leics loses the three just-mentioned wards to Loughborough and gains three (two, Oakthorpe and Appleby, that are currently in the seat, plus one ward from Bosworth (presumably either Twycross or Barlestone)). Bosworth loses those three wards to NW Leics and gains two (Ratby (which is in the current seat) and Normanton). Mid Leics loses four wards (Narborough, Normanton, Pastures and Ratby) and gains three (Ellis, Fairestone and Thurmaston) - note that all of the three wards gained are in the current equivalent seat of Charnwood, and all of the four lost are not. Blaby & Wigston (or whatever you end up calling it) loses two (Stanton and Croft Hill, which together comprised a really ugly salient in the BCE's initial scheme) and gains two (Narborough and Pastures). Harborough loses Billedon and Nevill and gains Stanton and Croft Hill. So I make that, compared with the BCE initial scheme, a total of 18 wards shifted, which is not an excessive number in a county with such small wards. Moreover, of those 18, in ten cases the 'shift' involves keeping the ward in the current seat (taking Charnwood and S Leics as the predecessor-seats of Mid Leics and the Blaby mash-up).
So this could be presented to the BCE as substantially a reversion to its original scheme, subject to adjustments to accommodate the two wards no longer incorporated in a seat otherwise in Leicester, to address the wasp-waisted nature of their initially proposed Blaby seat, and to retain more wards in their current constituencies. It also avoids the highly undesirable precedent of a three-county seat and allows them to revert to their perfectly sensible initial plans in Lincs and Rutland.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 20, 2022 20:37:10 GMT
I think it's unlikely that there will be further changes in Leicestershire unless there's a fuss from the bit they've put in the three county seat, and even if there is they might just add Thurnby to the name or something like that. I doubt they'll go back to the initial proposals given the unpopularity of crossing the city boundary; islington's latest take could be a compromise though I'm not sure they'd like it in the Castle Donington area, and like a number of plans posted in this thread (including my first attempt) it splits Enderby, part being in Pastures ward. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 21, 2022 10:52:54 GMT
I think it's unlikely that there will be further changes in Leicestershire unless there's a fuss from the bit they've put in the three county seat, and even if there is they might just add Thurnby to the name or something like that. I doubt they'll go back to the initial proposals given the unpopularity of crossing the city boundary; islington 's latest take could be a compromise though I'm not sure they'd like it in the Castle Donington area, and like a number of plans posted in this thread (including my first attempt) it splits Enderby, part being in Pastures ward. I'm sure this is right. The chances of a material variation at this late stage are very slim but I'm still minded to give it a go and this plan, although the longest of long shots, seems the best bet. So I'll probably go with it, except that after sleeping on it I think that Barlestone, rather than Twycross, works slightly better as the unavoidable orphan ward of Bosworth to go into NW Leics.
The whole of Castle Donington stays in NW Leics in this proposal. As for Enderby: yes, I know, but I can't see an easy resolution in the context of trying to maintain the substance of the BCE's initial plan. After all, the current BCE scheme splits Sileby and Mountsorrel, both of which are avoided in this counterproposal. You could also have pointed out that Thurmaston is on the wrong side of the Soar from the rest of the Mid Leics seat, with no bridge - but if Harwich & N Essex can exist, why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 21, 2022 11:43:12 GMT
One more possibility:  Melton & Harborough 75756 Loughborough 76861 NW Leics 76306 Bosworth 76487 S Leics 75660 Wigston & Lutterworth 76476 I don't like the orphan wards, but you can get rid of most of those by giving S Leics Countesthorpe and Croft Hill (making it co-extensive with Blaby district) and returning Broughton Astley to the Wigston seat, then splitting a ward - the most suitable option would seem to be moving the parish of Lubenham and the bit of Market Harborough in Lubenham ward to Melton & Harborough. I don't care enough to propose this, but anybody who wants to play with this is welcome to it. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 29, 2022 17:37:14 GMT
I've made my submission for the East Midlands - the reference is BCE-109084. I'm calling for the BCE to return to the initial proposals for the two Northampton seats; or failing that to return to the initial proposals but with a split of the Abington & Phippsville ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 29, 2022 20:08:01 GMT
I think it's unlikely that there will be further changes in Leicestershire unless there's a fuss from the bit they've put in the three county seat, and even if there is they might just add Thurnby to the name or something like that. I doubt they'll go back to the initial proposals given the unpopularity of crossing the city boundary; islington 's latest take could be a compromise though I'm not sure they'd like it in the Castle Donington area, and like a number of plans posted in this thread (including my first attempt) it splits Enderby, part being in Pastures ward. Actually I've now got a fix for the Enderby problem and also the Thurmaston problem. Compared with the the BCE's initial scheme: Melton loses the two Syston wards and gains three (Barrow (thus putting Sileby together), Thurnby and Billesdon (both of which are in the current Rutland & Melton seat). 75259. Loughborough loses one (Barrow) and gains three (Long Whatton, Kegworth and Daleacre Hill). This gives it the Kegworth area but no part of Castle Donington. 76861. NW Leics loses the three just-mentioned wards to Loughborough and gains three (two, Oakthorpe and Appleby, that are currently in the seat, plus one ward from Bosworth (I've settled on Barlestone because of its proximity to Ibstock)). 76291. Bosworth loses those three wards to NW Leics and gains two (Ratby (which is in the current seat) and Normanton). 76759. Mid Leics loses five wards (Enderby, Narborough, Normanton, Pastures and Ratby) and gains four (Ellis, Fairestone and Syston x 2) - note that all of the four wards gained are in the current equivalent seat of Charnwood, and all of the five lost are not. 75570. Blaby & Wigston (or whatever you end up calling it) loses two (Countesthorpe and Stanton) and gains three (Enderby, Narborough and Pastures, thus keeping Enderby together). 75131. Harborough loses Thurnby and Billedon and gains Countesthorpe and Stanton. 75412. Sorry, no map because I'm not at my usual computer. Edited to add: Actually, exchange Croft Hill and Normanton compared with the above. Bosworth 76502, Blaby 75388. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 29, 2022 20:34:59 GMT
I think it's unlikely that there will be further changes in Leicestershire unless there's a fuss from the bit they've put in the three county seat, and even if there is they might just add Thurnby to the name or something like that. I doubt they'll go back to the initial proposals given the unpopularity of crossing the city boundary; islington 's latest take could be a compromise though I'm not sure they'd like it in the Castle Donington area, and like a number of plans posted in this thread (including my first attempt) it splits Enderby, part being in Pastures ward. Actually I've now got a fix for the Enderby problem and also the Thurmaston problem. Compared with the the BCE's initial scheme: Melton loses the two Syston wards and gains three (Barrow (thus putting Sileby together), Thurnby and Billesdon (both of which are in the current Rutland & Melton seat). 75259. Loughborough loses one (Barrow) and gains three (Long Whatton, Kegworth and Daleacre Hill). This gives it the Kegworth area but no part of Castle Donington. 76861. NW Leics loses the three just-mentioned wards to Loughborough and gains three (two, Oakthorpe and Appleby, that are currently in the seat, plus one ward from Bosworth (I've settled on Barlestone because of its proximity to Ibstock)). 76291. Bosworth loses those three wards to NW Leics and gains two (Ratby (which is in the current seat) and Normanton). 76759. Mid Leics loses five wards (Enderby, Narborough, Normanton, Pastures and Ratby) and gains four (Ellis, Fairestone and Syston x 2) - note that all of the four wards gained are in the current equivalent seat of Charnwood, and all of the five lost are not. 75570. Blaby & Wigston (or whatever you end up calling it) loses two (Countesthorpe and Stanton) and gains three (Enderby, Narborough and Pastures, thus keeping Enderby together). 75131. Harborough loses Thurnby and Billedon and gains Countesthorpe and Stanton. 75412. Sorry, no map because I'm not at my usual computer. I tried mapping it, and I think your Melton is over quota; I suspect you missed Bottesford, which has the missing electorate. It should be rescuable by splitting Billesdon & Tilton ward, which is one of those multi-parish rural wards, but I doubt you'll want to go there. I also think Croft Hill looks horribly out on a limb; I'd swap it with Normanton. Edit: I see you already thought that. |
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on Nov 29, 2022 22:23:20 GMT
I've made my submission for the East Midlands - the reference is BCE-109084. I'm calling for the BCE to return to the initial proposals for the two Northampton seats; or failing that to return to the initial proposals but with a split of the Abington & Phippsville ward. That surprises me as I think the BCE did a good job in improving their original proposals in Northampton: ensuring the town centre and its continuation along Welly Road is in one seat, keeping Abington & Phippsville with its most natural neighbouring wards, Headlands, Castle, and St George, and using the river and key east-west roads as logical boundaries between north and south. Why go back or consider splitting wards? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 30, 2022 10:12:32 GMT
I've made my submission for the East Midlands - the reference is BCE-109084. I'm calling for the BCE to return to the initial proposals for the two Northampton seats; or failing that to return to the initial proposals but with a split of the Abington & Phippsville ward. That surprises me as I think the BCE did a good job in improving their original proposals in Northampton: ensuring the town centre and its continuation along Welly Road is in one seat, keeping Abington & Phippsville with its most natural neighbouring wards, Headlands, Castle, and St George, and using the river and key east-west roads as logical boundaries between north and south. Why go back or consider splitting wards? Because that Northampton South seat is a monstrosity. The revised proposals split the Eastern District (which is already the case, but on the new ward boundaries it's a much worse split) and split up St James. The initial proposals had a much stronger set of boundaries along the railway line and major roads (with the possible exception of Phippsville, hence why I suggested it might be a candidate for a split.) I don't think Abington & Phippsville has much in common with Headlands, because Park Avenue North is a surprisingly strong boundary on the ground. The link with Castle is strong, but either way they go into the same seat. Phippsville is linked with Kingsley, but Abington really isn't. |
|
