Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 14:53:33 GMT
 My earlier attempt in map form |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 11, 2021 12:51:25 GMT
Has anybody tried assigning 11 seats to Rutland and Leicestershire? It can be done, but it's even trickier than Wiltshire and very, very ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2021 14:32:37 GMT
Has anybody tried assigning 11 seats to Rutland and Leicestershire? It can be done, but it's even trickier than Wiltshire and very, very ugly. Yes. I don't know what's worse: the ugly ward-swap between Melton and Charnwood or the pitchforky butchery of Leicester and Oadby and Wigston:  1 North West Leicestershire 70926 Yes 2 Loughborough 71301 Yes 3 Charnwood 69790 Yes 4 Bosworth 70321 Yes 5 Hinckley 73046 Yes 6 Harborough 71190 Yes 7 Rutland and Melton 70528 Yes 8 Leicester North 70626 Yes 9 Leicester East 71158 Yes 10 Leicester West 75805 Yes 11 Leicester South 70012 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 11, 2021 14:47:30 GMT
Has anyone suggested a Rutland East and Peterborough West constituency?  |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 11, 2021 15:09:27 GMT
Has anyone suggested a Rutland East and Peterborough West constituency? surely a four authority Stamford seat is called for. |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jan 13, 2021 13:26:34 GMT
Derbyshire (also in the plan, hence the numbers of the Leicestershire seats) is really easy: move Hilton and Hatton from South Derbyshire to Dales and South West Parishes ward of Amber Valley district from Dales, to "Mid Derbyshire" (which I will call Belper, because the other name is rubbish). The other simple option for Derbyshire would be Alport and Crich wards being moved into Mid Derbyshire from Derbyshire Dales rather than South West Parishes whilst as you say Hatton and Hilton to Dales. I guess we can assume that the opportunity to actually do something about the hideous Mid Derbyshire seat will be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 13, 2021 15:25:33 GMT
What would you suggest doing about it? Given how little movement of wards is necessary to achieve quota everywhere (four wards moving across the whole county may be the lowest anywhere apart from Herefordshire and Worcestershire) it would be madness to tear up the map and completely redraw it. The main problem is with the name and YL has proposed the correct solution to that. Some Derby wards have to be in a largely non-Derby seat and South Derbyshire hardly has space for any so I can't see an alternative |
|
|
|
Post by mrsir on Jan 13, 2021 15:32:44 GMT
I’m not an expert on these matters but if Lincoln gets North Hykeham does it really need to be added to the constituency name?
Live in Lincoln, work in North Hykeham. Everyone who lives in Hykeham would say they’re from Lincoln.
|
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jan 13, 2021 16:00:46 GMT
What would you suggest doing about it? Given how little movement of wards is necessary to achieve quota everywhere (four wards moving across the whole county may be the lowest anywhere apart from Herefordshire and Worcestershire) it would be madness to tear up the map and completely redraw it. The main problem is with the name and YL has proposed the correct solution to that. Some Derby wards have to be in a largely non-Derby seat and South Derbyshire hardly has space for any so I can't see an alternative It can be done, however it requires a review of the seats in Derbyshire which ignores the existing seat and council boundaries (given that the borough councils may well disappear in the near future perhaps we should) and start from scratch. I have drafted a plan that does away with pairing Belper with the East of Derby City which have relatively little to do with each other and instead making a Long Eaton seat that takes in Spondon, an Ilkeston seat taking in Heanor and Belper seat including both Ripley and Wirksworth. It would be a very large scale change (is that actually madness?) which I regard as highly unlikely to occur. I would just love to see the back of Mid Derbyshire. All indications are since you can have a virtually no change approach that this is what will be recommended and implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 13, 2021 16:08:25 GMT
What would you suggest doing about it? Given how little movement of wards is necessary to achieve quota everywhere (four wards moving across the whole county may be the lowest anywhere apart from Herefordshire and Worcestershire) it would be madness to tear up the map and completely redraw it. The main problem is with the name and YL has proposed the correct solution to that. Some Derby wards have to be in a largely non-Derby seat and South Derbyshire hardly has space for any so I can't see an alternative It can be done, however it requires a review of the seats in Derbyshire which ignores the existing seat and council boundaries (given that the borough councils may well disappear in the near future perhaps we should) and start from scratch. I have drafted a plan that does away with pairing Belper with the East of Derby City which have relatively little to do with each other and instead making a Long Eaton seat that takes in Spondon, an Ilkeston seat taking in Heanor and Belper seat including both Ripley and Wirksworth. It would be a very large scale change ( is that actually madness?) which I regard as highly unlikely to occur. I would just love to see the back of Mid Derbyshire. All indications are since you can have a virtually no change approach that this is what will be recommended and implemented. Only in the sense that it has no chance of happening on this occasion so it would be a waste of time proposing it. Not a waste of time drawing a plan though obviously - I personally can think of no better use of ones time than drawing up constituency boundaries whether they are going to be used in real life or just for ones own amusement. I also have every sympathy with your desire to break up what you consider to be an illogical and annoying constituency in your county |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 13, 2021 17:28:31 GMT
I’m not an expert on these matters but if Lincoln gets North Hykeham does it really need to be added to the constituency name? Live in Lincoln, work in North Hykeham. Everyone who lives in Hykeham would say they’re from Lincoln. I would say no, and I'm more inclined to longer, more inclusive names than some on here (though less than at least one). I don't think it will gain North Hykeham, though; as far as I can see there is no need to change Lincoln's boundaries at all. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 13, 2021 17:42:50 GMT
Lincoln's boundaries can remain completely unchanged. Sleaford & North Hykeham retains its name despite the number of wards it has to lose to be in quota.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 14, 2021 0:22:07 GMT
What would you suggest doing about it? Given how little movement of wards is necessary to achieve quota everywhere (four wards moving across the whole county may be the lowest anywhere apart from Herefordshire and Worcestershire) it would be madness to tear up the map and completely redraw it. The main problem is with the name and YL has proposed the correct solution to that. Some Derby wards have to be in a largely non-Derby seat and South Derbyshire hardly has space for any so I can't see an alternative I would just love to see the back of Mid Derbyshire. All indications are since you can have a virtually no change approach that this is what will be recommended and implemented. There are two sub-clauses in the legislation that point in this direction which the BCE seem utterly wedded to. Especially as we aren't aiming to reduce the number of seats by 50 this time, they'll probably be even less inclined to treat it as if the map were being drawn up from scratch. I haven't really looked at this region too closely yet, but in some other areas of the country I find that approach disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jan 16, 2021 10:51:59 GMT
I'm holding off posting Northamptonshire until we have the new ward data, similarly Lincolnshire and Rutland until we have the new ward data for North Kesteven. Derbyshire is sadly obvious. We are stuck with the abomination that is Mid Derbyshire. Here is my best shot at Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire: Leicester and Leicestershire (10) Blaby (76056) (South Leicestershire) loses all Harborough electors; gains all Blaby electors lost by Charnwood; becoming coterminous with District Charnwood (74852) loses all Blaby electors and all Hinckley & Bosworth electors; gains all Charnwood wards lost by Loughborough Harborough & Melton (70778) (Rutland & Melton) loses Rutland, Thurnby & Houghton; gains Harborough electors lost by Harborough Hinckley (76281) (Bosworth) loses Ambien, Barlestone Nailstone & Osbaston, Cadeby Carlton & Market Bosworth with Shackerstone, Twycross & Witherley with Sheepy; gains Groby Leicester East (74081) loses Belgrave; gains Thurnby & Houghton Leicester South (77012) unchanged Leicester West (75903) gains Belgrave Loughborough (76400) loses Barrow & Sileby West, Quorn & Mountsorrel Castle, Sileby; gains all North West Leicestershire electors lost by West Leicestershire South Leicestershire (76310) (Harborough) loses Kibworths, Lubenham, Market Harborough x 4; gains all Harborough electors lost by Blaby West Leicestershire (76876) (North West Leicestershire) loses Castle Donington x 3, Daleacre Hill, Kegworth, Long Whatton & Diseworth, Worthington & Breedon; gains all Hinckley & Bosworth electors lost by Hinckley ibb.co/LPWbvsZNottingham and Nottinghamshire (11) Ashfield (73773) loses all Broxtowe electors; gains Newstead Abbey Bassetlaw (75809) loses Sturton, Welbeck Broxtowe (72461) loses Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, Watnall & Nuthall West; gains all Broxtowe electors lost by Ashfield Carlton & Southwell (73981) (Gedling) loses Bestwood St Albans, Coppice, Daybrook, Ernehale, Plains, Porchester, Redhill, Woodthorpe; gains all Rushcliffe wards not in Rushcliffe, Bilsthorpe, Dover Beck, Farnsfield, Lowdham, Rainworth x 2, Southwell Hucknall & Arnold (75007) (Sherwood) loses all Newark & Sherwood electors, Newstead Abbey; gains all Gedling electors lost by Carlton & Southwell Mansfield (76256) loses Market Warsop, Meden, Netherfield, Warsop Carrs; gains Edwinstowe & Clipstone Newark (74262) loses all Rushcliffe electors, Dover Beck, Lowdham, Southwell; gains all Bassetlaw electors lost by Bassetlaw, all Mansfield electors lost by Mansfield, Boughton, Ollerton Nottingham East (76161) loses Dales, gains Bestwood, Castle Nottingham North West (74902) (Nottingham North) loses Bestwood; gains all Broxtowe electors lost by Broxtowe, Leen Valley Nottingham South (74855) loses Castle, Leen Valley; gains Dales Rushcliffe (76171) unchanged other than to reflect revised wards ibb.co/ZfjRf86 |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 16, 2021 14:36:28 GMT
Had a go at East Mids. Looking back up the thread I seem to have gone for less change than most in Notts, but at the expense of a Sherwood seat that I suspect most in here would refuse to contemplate. (if you're having a 'bits left over' seat, you might as well go the whole hog). I ended up expanding both Nottingham E and Leicester S outside their city boundaries - is it even possible to get 7 seats in Leics excluding the city? (I couldn't find a way).    |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 16, 2021 16:07:18 GMT
If you need Leicester seats which go outside the boundaries of Leicester City, it makes more sense for one of them to contain the borough of Oadby & Wigston, which is practically joined at the hip with Leicester.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 16, 2021 16:14:02 GMT
Had a go at East Mids. Looking back up the thread I seem to have gone for less change than most in Notts, but at the expense of a Sherwood seat that I suspect most in here would refuse to contemplate. (if you're having a 'bits left over' seat, you might as well go the whole hog). I ended up expanding both Nottingham E and Leicester S outside their city boundaries - is it even possible to get 7 seats in Leics excluding the city? (I couldn't find a way). Actually to correct myself after a bit more fiddling around I did find a way of preserving the Leicester city boundary, if you think that is important (I do not propose this as a serious suggestion):  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 16, 2021 16:18:16 GMT
If you need Leicester seats which go outside the boundaries of Leicester City, it makes more sense for one of them to contain the borough of Oadby & Wigston, which is practically joined at the hip with Leicester. Braunstone is every bit as much 'joined at the hip' with Leicester as Oadby and Wigston are, if not more so (although that scheme splits Braunstone which slightly lessens the appeal of that aspect of it) |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 16, 2021 16:21:34 GMT
If you need Leicester seats which go outside the boundaries of Leicester City, it makes more sense for one of them to contain the borough of Oadby & Wigston, which is practically joined at the hip with Leicester. You can do that if you don't mind having two seats which both are half or less from Leicester itself. I wanted to retain three essentially Leicester seats, plus if possible two seats covering the Leicester suburbs. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 16, 2021 16:28:57 GMT
This very similar to my own scheme which instead used Thurmaston to the north to bolster the city. The fact is only one or two wards need adding to the mix and Oadby & Wigston mostly borders Leicester South which is the one seat in the city which is in quota and is best left alone (especially with such a high-but-still-in-quota electorate which helps alleviate pressure on other seats, given the high average electorate needed in this county. If you link Oadby & Wigston with Leicester you have around 3.5 quotas so it leads to a complete redrawing of the city area (something which is possible as I showed upthread, but probably not desirable) Also here's my Leicestershire (though as noted elsewhere, the BCE may not care for my disregard for their 'minimal change' dogma in regard to the Harborough/Blaby/Oadby & Wigston are)  |
|
