YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jan 17, 2021 17:14:20 GMT
Nottingham 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/ZfjRf86I came up with a similar plan to this (in fact I think the only difference was that I had Warsop and some neighbouring areas in Bassetlaw and Retford in Newark) as an attempt to avoid the need bite out of Mansfield. I wasn't sure whether I'd got the Carlton/Arnold boundary in a reasonable place, though; I guess you think it's OK. It's actually possible to rearrange to retain a recognisable Gedling (Carlton and Arnold) seat, but Hucknall is really out on a limb in the left over "Sherwood" seat. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jan 17, 2021 17:58:53 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. The new boundaries for North Kesteven haven't reached the Statutory Instrument stage yet so I don't think they will be used. I never actually posted my Lincolnshire and Rutland map. Here it is, although it's not very different from others':  22. Gainsborough (74,750). Becomes coterminous with West Lindsey district. 23. Louth & Horncastle (70,016). Gains Wragby, loses some southern wards. 24. Lincoln (74,128; number not on map). Unchanged. 25. Sleaford & North Hykeham (73,380). Loses some southern wards. 26. Boston & Skegness (70,654). Shifts north a bit. The numbers for the split of East Lindsey district are quite tight. 27. Holland without BostonSpalding (76,164). Replaces South Holland & the Deepings, losing the Deepings but gaining three wards west of Boston. On balance I think "Spalding" is the best name; it goes quite far north in the Parts of Holland for "South Holland". 28. Grantham (72,071). Loses Stamford from both name and territory, and gains the territory lost by seat 25. 29. Rutland & Stamford (70,895). Rutland, and southern South Kesteven including Stamford and the Deepings. |
|
|
|
Post by alexrichards on Jan 19, 2021 20:57:01 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. I'd be interesting in seeing what you're doing with that Long Eaton seat, because I think you've got to include Aston from South Derbyshire. And much as it might be nice to resurrect South East Derbyshire Rural District Council, Barrow, Weston and Aston really don't have any business being in the same constituency (Elvaston and Shardlow at least have *some* links) and it's very nearly non-contiguous in real terms. |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jan 20, 2021 13:13:18 GMT
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. I'd be interesting in seeing what you're doing with that Long Eaton seat, because I think you've got to include Aston from South Derbyshire. And much as it might be nice to resurrect South East Derbyshire Rural District Council, Barrow, Weston and Aston really don't have any business being in the same constituency (Elvaston and Shardlow at least have *some* links) and it's very nearly non-contiguous in real terms. Amusingly I used to live in Aston Ward (Weston on Trent) so I know what you mean about the links and as you say this ward doesn't link to Long Eaton much but then it doesn't link to Swadlincote and the rest of South Derbyshire particularly either. It has become part of a Greater Derby. I haven't come up with anything that works for a Long Eaton seat without including Aston Ward (some versions have included Melbourne, which is worse). Versions where I tried to make three seats for Greater Derby fail if you keep to the county boundaries. I would experiment with ignoring county lines and redrawing the whole region but I just don't know the localities outside Derbyshire well enough to avoid the sort of mistakes that were mentioned upthread in Leicestershire. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 20, 2021 13:28:18 GMT
I'd be interesting in seeing what you're doing with that Long Eaton seat, because I think you've got to include Aston from South Derbyshire. And much as it might be nice to resurrect South East Derbyshire Rural District Council, Barrow, Weston and Aston really don't have any business being in the same constituency (Elvaston and Shardlow at least have *some* links) and it's very nearly non-contiguous in real terms. Amusingly I used to live in Aston Ward (Weston on Trent) so I know what you mean about the links and as you say this ward doesn't link to Long Eaton much but then it doesn't link to Swadlincote and the rest of South Derbyshire particularly either. It has become part of a Greater Derby. I haven't come up with anything that works for a Long Eaton seat without including Aston Ward (some versions have included Melbourne, which is worse). Versions where I tried to make three seats for Greater Derby fail if you keep to the county boundaries. I would experiment with ignoring county lines and redrawing the whole region but I just don't know the localities outside Derbyshire well enough to avoid the sort of mistakes that were mentioned upthread in Leicestershire. The boundary between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is pretty loose in community terms in parts of that area - Long Eaton/Attenborough and Sandiacre/Stapleford. A large part of Aston Ward (the Boulton Moor estate certainly) is really part of Derby with much of it only accessible from within Derby. At some stage a boundary review is likely to recognise that. This will also be true of the city extensions taking place in Littleover/Findern and possibly Stenson Fields/Sinfin (although that development has existed for much longer and the parish council resisted incorporation previously). |
|
|
|
Post by alexrichards on Jan 20, 2021 23:18:04 GMT
I'd be interesting in seeing what you're doing with that Long Eaton seat, because I think you've got to include Aston from South Derbyshire. And much as it might be nice to resurrect South East Derbyshire Rural District Council, Barrow, Weston and Aston really don't have any business being in the same constituency (Elvaston and Shardlow at least have *some* links) and it's very nearly non-contiguous in real terms. Amusingly I used to live in Aston Ward (Weston on Trent) so I know what you mean about the links and as you say this ward doesn't link to Long Eaton much but then it doesn't link to Swadlincote and the rest of South Derbyshire particularly either. It has become part of a Greater Derby. I haven't come up with anything that works for a Long Eaton seat without including Aston Ward (some versions have included Melbourne, which is worse). Versions where I tried to make three seats for Greater Derby fail if you keep to the county boundaries. I would experiment with ignoring county lines and redrawing the whole region but I just don't know the localities outside Derbyshire well enough to avoid the sort of mistakes that were mentioned upthread in Leicestershire. That's true as well. Really that whole area twixt Derby and the Trent is in a similar situation. Although the Campaign for Better Transport being against any sort of new bypass at Swarkestone has cemented them in my 'opinion not worth bothering with' column. Amusingly I used to live in Aston Ward (Weston on Trent) so I know what you mean about the links and as you say this ward doesn't link to Long Eaton much but then it doesn't link to Swadlincote and the rest of South Derbyshire particularly either. It has become part of a Greater Derby. I haven't come up with anything that works for a Long Eaton seat without including Aston Ward (some versions have included Melbourne, which is worse). Versions where I tried to make three seats for Greater Derby fail if you keep to the county boundaries. I would experiment with ignoring county lines and redrawing the whole region but I just don't know the localities outside Derbyshire well enough to avoid the sort of mistakes that were mentioned upthread in Leicestershire. The boundary between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is pretty loose in community terms in parts of that area - Long Eaton/Attenborough and Sandiacre/Stapleford. A large part of Aston Ward (the Boulton Moor estate certainly) is really part of Derby with much of it only accessible from within Derby. At some stage a boundary review is likely to recognise that. This will also be true of the city extensions taking place in Littleover/Findern and possibly Stenson Fields/Sinfin (although that development has existed for much longer and the parish council resisted incorporation previously). I suspect some sort of 'Southern Derbyshire' Unitary is more likely to happen first myself. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 20, 2021 23:23:18 GMT
Amusingly I used to live in Aston Ward (Weston on Trent) so I know what you mean about the links and as you say this ward doesn't link to Long Eaton much but then it doesn't link to Swadlincote and the rest of South Derbyshire particularly either. It has become part of a Greater Derby. I haven't come up with anything that works for a Long Eaton seat without including Aston Ward (some versions have included Melbourne, which is worse). Versions where I tried to make three seats for Greater Derby fail if you keep to the county boundaries. I would experiment with ignoring county lines and redrawing the whole region but I just don't know the localities outside Derbyshire well enough to avoid the sort of mistakes that were mentioned upthread in Leicestershire. That's true as well. Really that whole area twixt Derby and the Trent is in a similar situation. Although the Campaign for Better Transport being against any sort of new bypass at Swarkestone has cemented them in my 'opinion not worth bothering with' column. The boundary between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is pretty loose in community terms in parts of that area - Long Eaton/Attenborough and Sandiacre/Stapleford. A large part of Aston Ward (the Boulton Moor estate certainly) is really part of Derby with much of it only accessible from within Derby. At some stage a boundary review is likely to recognise that. This will also be true of the city extensions taking place in Littleover/Findern and possibly Stenson Fields/Sinfin (although that development has existed for much longer and the parish council resisted incorporation previously). I suspect some sort of 'Southern Derbyshire' Unitary is more likely to happen first myself. Pitchfork words! |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 21, 2021 0:25:29 GMT
The boundary between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is pretty loose in community terms in parts of that area - Long Eaton/Attenborough and Sandiacre/Stapleford. A large part of Aston Ward (the Boulton Moor estate certainly) is really part of Derby with much of it only accessible from within Derby. At some stage a boundary review is likely to recognise that. This will also be true of the city extensions taking place in Littleover/Findern and possibly Stenson Fields/Sinfin (although that development has existed for much longer and the parish council resisted incorporation previously). Yep:  |
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,274
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 22, 2021 16:03:36 GMT
Had the idea of trying to create a seat comprising Oadby & Wigston plus Blaby and Braunstone Town but the numbers didn't quite work. The shape of the seat wasn't good either.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jan 24, 2021 17:36:26 GMT
Just for fun, I thought I'd have a go at Derbyshire ignoring the minimal change criterion. I started off aiming to change every seat, but in the end I couldn't find a sensible option within the numbers for either Long Eaton or Ilkeston other than putting them together exactly as the current map does. Derby South ended up the same as well.  Buxton & Glossop (70,716). High Peak without Hope Valley ward. Derbyshire Dales (70,311). Gains Hope Valley, Hatton, Hilton, loses all Amber Valley wards. Adding Hope Valley removes the weird split of the valley, but more importantly allows it to pull out of Amber Valley altogether. Bolsover & Dronfield (70,514). A north/south split of the north-east rather than an east-west one. Chesterfield (71,058). Loses Old Whittington, gains Lowgates & Woodthorpe, unifying the Staveley built up area. Clay Cross (76,174). The southern parts of NE Derbyshire and Bolsover. Belper (70,575). Amber Valley district except the Heanor area. Derby North East & Heanor (73,401). At least this is a less weird shape than Mid Derbyshire. Erewash (71,986). Unchanged. South Derbyshire (71,202). Loses Hilton and Hatton. Derby North West (72,978). Loses Chaddesden, gains Allestree. Derby South (72,067). |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 24, 2021 20:35:57 GMT
Just for fun, I thought I'd have a go at Derbyshire ignoring the minimal change criterion. I started off aiming to change every seat, but in the end I couldn't find a sensible option within the numbers for either Long Eaton or Ilkeston other than putting them together exactly as the current map does. Derby South ended up the same as well. Buxton & Glossop (70,716). High Peak without Hope Valley ward. I would strongly support that. Hope Valley has no business being in any sub-Derbyshire unit with areas to the west of the Pennines. Hope and Hathersage should both be in the same grouping at whatever level of government. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 25, 2021 19:51:30 GMT
Notts & Leics.
I found both these really tricky but I'm not too unhappy with the outcome. I managed to treat Leicester separately but not Nottingham. At least I have managed to contrive my trademark 'Mid' seat in each county.
 Nottinghamshire (including Nottingham)
Bassetlaw - 75809. Mid Nottinghamshire - 73137. Or possibly 'Southwell' if you can't bear 'Mid' names. But, please, not 'Sherwood'.
Mansfield - 70797. The inclusion of Sutton Jcn is really unfortunate, but there are no ideal solutions in this area. Ashfield - 75682. The loss of Sutton Jcn allows this to remain otherwise unchanged. Beeston - 74160. The current Broxtowe seat. I don't like the name but my suggested alternative shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Hucknall - 75007. More or less the successor to Gedling (but not including Gedling itself). Nottingham North - 76137. Nottingham West - 75780. The successor to Nottm S.
Nottingham East - 74416. Includes Carlton (which might well be added to the name).
West Bridgford - 76914. The successor of Rushcliffe. Like others, I found it very difficult to know what to add to Nottingham - the obvious candidates - Beeston, Hucknall, Carlton, W Bridgford - were all too big. The key was to leave the Clifton wards out of Nottingham, from which they are are already largely isolated (I see Neath West upthread had the same idea).
Newark - 75799. Very long and thin, basically because it avoids crossing the Trent apart from two wards immediately adjoining Newark itself.
Leicester Leicester West - 72848.
Leicester South - 72687.
Leicester East - 74785.
Leicestershire
Melton Mowbray - 75995. Or NE Leics if you prefer. Loughborough - 76780.
West Leicestershire - 76505. The successor to NW Leics. Mid Leicestershire - 75238.
Bosworth - 76736. South Leicestershire - 76428. South East Leicestershire - 76547. Or 'Oadby & Wigston', I suppose, since it includes the whole of that district.
Edited to add: Sorry, I've just realized that Mid Notts extends into four LAs. This can be avoided by exchanging Retford and Warsop, so that Bassetlaw includes the whole eponymous district, minus Retford, E Markham and Tuxford. It looks a bit weird, though.
Bassetlaw - 72149. Retford and Southwell - 76797.
|
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,274
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 25, 2021 20:15:44 GMT
When I've finished doing my own boundary proposals I might do a spreadsheet listing everyone's proposals so they can be compared. Assumes the lockdown doesn't end soon.  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 25, 2021 22:30:10 GMT
Notts & Leics.
I found both these really tricky but I'm not too unhappy with the outcome. I managed to treat Leicester separately but not Nottingham. At least I have managed to contrive my trademark 'Mid' seat in each county.
Nottinghamshire (including Nottingham)
Bassetlaw - 75809. Mid Nottinghamshire - 73137. Or possibly 'Southwell' if you can't bear 'Mid' names. But, please, not 'Sherwood'.
Mansfield - 70797. The inclusion of Sutton Jcn is really unfortunate, but there are no ideal solutions in this area. Ashfield - 75682. The loss of Sutton Jcn allows this to remain otherwise unchanged. Beeston - 74160. The current Broxtowe seat. I don't like the name but my suggested alternative shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Hucknall - 75007. More or less the successor to Gedling (but not including Gedling itself). Nottingham North - 76137. Nottingham West - 75780. The successor to Nottm S.
Nottingham East - 74416. Includes Carlton (which might well be added to the name).
West Bridgford - 76914. The successor of Rushcliffe. Like others, I found it very difficult to know what to add to Nottingham - the obvious candidates - Beeston, Hucknall, Carlton, W Bridgford - were all too big. The key was to leave the Clifton wards out of Nottingham, from which they are are already largely isolated (I see Neath West upthread had the same idea).
Newark - 75799. Very long and thin, basically because it avoids crossing the Trent apart from two wards immediately adjoining Newark itself.
Leicester Leicester West - 72848.
Leicester South - 72687.
Leicester East - 74785.
Leicestershire
Melton Mowbray - 75995. Or NE Leics if you prefer. Loughborough - 76780.
West Leicestershire - 76505. The successor to NW Leics. Mid Leicestershire - 75238.
Bosworth - 76736. South Leicestershire - 76428. South East Leicestershire - 76547. Or 'Oadby & Wigston', I suppose, since it includes the whole of that district.
Edited to add: Sorry, I've just realized that Mid Notts extends into four LAs. This can be avoided by exchanging Retford and Warsop, so that Bassetlaw includes the whole eponymous district, minus Retford, E Markham and Tuxford. It looks a bit weird, though.
Bassetlaw - 72149. Retford and Southwell - 76797.
The BCE used this rationale in the 2018 review for creating the West Bridgford seat as a successor to Rushcliffe, although this was also spurred on by Nottingham clearly not being large enough for three seats by itself. This is not the case for the 2023 review and Nottingham's three constituencies do not require substantial adjustments; certainly "Nottingham East & Carlton" is no longer required. Keeping the Rushcliffe seat as it is also means that the redrawn Newark seat will be slightly better connected internally. Your Melton Mowbray seat is very similar to the old pre-1983 seat of Melton, which did include a very substantial portion of the current Charnwood constituency. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jan 26, 2021 8:17:20 GMT
I have a feeling we may have discussed this before, but what's wrong with "Sherwood" as a name?
I found another way of doing Notts treating Nottingham separately. It's a bit less ridiculous than the one I had before, and doesn't split Retford, but it still crosses the Trent west of Nottingham, which is obviously objectionable.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 26, 2021 8:44:05 GMT
There's nothing wrong with 'Sherwood' as a name, but it should be reserved for an area that actually includes Sherwood, which is a former village long ago absorbed into Nottingham and now a district of the city. The use of 'Sherwood' is eminently reasonable as a name for the city ward that includes the Sherwood area.
Other uses of 'Sherwood' merely seek to capitalize on a spurious connection with an unaccountably romanticized thief who (if he existed at all) may well have been a Yorkshireman anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 26, 2021 9:38:48 GMT
Right: I'm not saying this is my preferred plan, but here's an 11-seat Notts that respects the city boundary and doesn't put Gotham in Broxtowe, doesn't take bites out of Mansfield town, and doesn't have any 4-LA seats. On the other hand, Warsop is divided and the Carlton & Southwell seat is an affront to god and man. But the other seats aren't actually all that bad. Newark and Bassetlaw would both look better if they swapped Beckingham and E Markham but that puts Newark over by 4 - so tight are the margins we're working with.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 26, 2021 10:26:44 GMT
Here's another Leicestershire plan  I originally kept Leicester South intact with the Oadby & Wigston based seat taking Thurncourt and Evington from Leicester East but it seemed to me the links were poor there. I know some people won't appreciate three crossings between city and county (and islington has found a good way to keep the city intact but I feel with poor seats in the county) I like the way the boundary between my Loughborough and Melton seats is the river Soar and I've avoided most of the splits of various places (Ibstock, Sileby) that were complained of in my earlier effort |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 26, 2021 11:10:03 GMT
And here's a revised Leicestershire, still respecting the city boundary. My starting point was to try to create a seat coterminous with Blaby district. That didn't quite work out, but I'm still happy overall with the outcome, which is tidier across the county as a whole and somewhat more respectful of the existing map than my previous effort. Edited to add: I should acknowledge that this has a lot in common with the plan posted by YL on 8 Jan. The Loughborough, NW Leics and Bosworth seats are identical; but the seats numbered 20, 17, 21 and 18 on his plan are all somewhat rotated in a clockwise direction. On the whole I think this rotation is an improvement, particularly in avoiding putting a boundary through the cluster of small wards to the south west of Leicester. (YL's plan is also different in Leicester itself.)  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jan 26, 2021 12:58:35 GMT
Yes, I think that is better: it doesn't split Enderby or separate South Wigston from its district, and it's probably better to put Melton Mowbray in a largely rural seat with Market Harborough than have them both joined with more suburban areas.
|
|
