|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 26, 2021 13:52:42 GMT
Here's another take on assigning 7 seats to Leicestershire, which prioritise not splitting LAs. I can't say I like it but it uses some combinations I'm not sure we've had before, and possibly others can see some tweaks to improve it:  Hinckley 76281 Coalville & Bosworth 76876 Loughborough 76579 Charnwood 76241 Melton & Harborough 75886 Wigston & Lutterworth 76310 Blaby 76056 |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 26, 2021 14:01:46 GMT
Here's a minimum change Notts which pus all of Beeston in with Nottingham South  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 26, 2021 16:12:56 GMT
Sticking with my theme of 'what happens if we do split Melton district?', here's a map which scores poorly on minimum change grounds but is surprisingly coherent in terms of the seats it produces:  East Leicestershire 75968 South Leicester Commuter Belt 76035 South Leicestershire 77032 West Leicester Commuter Belt 76344 North Leicester Commuter Belt 76338 Loughborough 76400 West Leicestershire 76112 |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 26, 2021 17:52:34 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. I'm not sure the district council will lithe and listen to that objection. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jan 28, 2021 11:15:21 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.
Islington, If you are prepared to countenance two seats crossing the Nottingham City boundary, you might as well use the whole length of the River Trent within the county as a constituency boundary: Ashfield (72584) Broxtowe (74160) Gedling (75795) Mansfield (76256) Newark (75248) Nottingham East (75327) Nottingham North & Hucknall (76877) Nottingham West (73237) Retford & Southwell (75042) West Bridgford & Clifton (72709) Worksop (76403) ibb.co/YjqyQGkMinimum change it is not. It is not my preferred plan. But it does avoid a lot of problems. If you are prepared to countenance two seats crossing the Nottingham City boundary, you might as well cross the Leicester City boundary once. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 28, 2021 12:41:04 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.
Islington, If you are prepared to countenance two seats crossing the Nottingham City boundary, you might as well use the whole length of the River Trent within the county as a constituency boundary: Ashfield (72584) Broxtowe (74160) Gedling (75795) Mansfield (76256) Newark (75248) Nottingham East (75327) Nottingham North & Hucknall (76877) Nottingham West (73237) Retford & Southwell (75042) West Bridgford & Clifton (72709) Worksop (76403) ibb.co/YjqyQGkMinimum change it is not. It is not my preferred plan. But it does avoid a lot of problems. If you are prepared to countenance two seats crossing the Nottingham City boundary, you might as well cross the Leicester City boundary once. Not my preferred plan either, because of the Ashfield seat and for various other reasons. I think the difference between Nottingham and Leicester is that the latter divides quite well into three seats and the rest of the county is not too bad either - not so much in the scheme to which you're responding but see, e.g., the map I posted on 26 Jan at 11.10am (itself an adaptation of a plan by YL ) and there are other options upthread. In the case of Nottingham, on the other hand, the division into three, while not outrageous, is much less satisfactory; and it comes with strongly adverse implications for the rest of the county. So for Notts, I'm sticking to my plan of 25 Jan with the exception that I'd swap Warsop and Retford as per my previous edit and I'd probably also swap Newstead Abbey into the Hucknall seat with Dumbles and Trent Valley going into Retford & Southwell and Porchester into Nottingham E. This results in more compact versions of Hucknall and Nottingham E, while leaving Retford & Southwell no worse than it was before. |
|
|
|
Post by brianjrvs on Jan 29, 2021 11:05:57 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. I'm not sure the district council will lithe and listen to that objection. The Sherwood constituency refers to Sherwood Forest. That does still exsist. It's remains start south of Worksop and end at the Nottingham City boundary. Most of us that live here think that it is a good name! |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 29, 2021 11:31:10 GMT
I'm not sure the district council will lithe and listen to that objection. The Sherwood constituency refers to Sherwood Forest. That does still exsist. It's remains start south of Worksop and end at the Nottingham City boundary. Most of us that live here think that it is a good name! I know that the reference is to Sherwood Forest but it doesn't say that; it just says 'Sherwood', which is a distinct location in its own right and is located well outside the Sherwood constituency and Newark & Sherwood LA.
I'd object less if the name 'Sherwood Forest' were used, although I'd still argue that this so-called forest, which is actually a few scattered patches of scrubby undergrowth that must come as a crushing disappointment to visiting tourists, wouldn't be referenced at all if not for its adventitious associations with the leader of a criminal gang who, if indeed he existed, very likely had no connections at all with the county that so enthusiastically embraces his name.
(Sorry, I paid my taxes this morning, it's left me feeling a bit sore. I'll be better after a cup of tea.)
|
|
|
|
Post by brianjrvs on Jan 29, 2021 21:02:41 GMT
The Sherwood constituency refers to Sherwood Forest. That does still exsist. It's remains start south of Worksop and end at the Nottingham City boundary. Most of us that live here think that it is a good name! I know that the reference is to Sherwood Forest but it doesn't say that; it just says 'Sherwood', which is a distinct location in its own right and is located well outside the Sherwood constituency and Newark & Sherwood LA. I'd object less if the name 'Sherwood Forest' were used, although I'd still argue that this so-called forest, which is actually a few scattered patches of scrubby undergrowth that must come as a crushing disappointment to visiting tourists, wouldn't be referenced at all if not for its adventitious associations with the leader of a criminal gang who, if indeed he existed, very likely had no connections at all with the county that so enthusiastically embraces his name.
(Sorry, I paid my taxes this morning, it's left me feeling a bit sore. I'll be better after a cup of tea.)
I seem to recall that at the last review, it was suggested that the constituency was renamed Sherwood Forest. And it isn't a few scattered patches either. The Birkland Plantation (part of the glorious Dukeries) is the oldest Oak woodland in Western Europe. And we make a lot of money out of the Robin Hood association these days too! Will Scarlet's tombstone is in Blidworth churchyard btw ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 29, 2021 23:11:06 GMT
The Center Parcs holiday park is known as Sherwood although Im not sure whether its actually in the forest area. Used to go there quite a lot in the 1990s before it became popular.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 30, 2021 13:21:17 GMT
The Center Parcs holiday park is known as Sherwood although Im not sure whether its actually in the forest area. Used to go there quite a lot in the 1990s before it became popular. Not too sure of the precise geography but I presume Clumber Park is part of Sherwood Forest. Is it currently in Bassetlaw or Sherwood or even Newark? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jan 30, 2021 13:39:07 GMT
The Center Parcs holiday park is known as Sherwood although Im not sure whether its actually in the forest area. Used to go there quite a lot in the 1990s before it became popular. Not too sure of the precise geography but I presume Clumber Park is part of Sherwood Forest. Is it currently in Bassetlaw or Sherwood or even Newark? Centre Parcs is on the edge of Sherwood Forest. We went there in 1988 which must have been one of the first years that it was open. It is in Sherwood constituency. Clumber isn’t really in Sherwood Forest and is in Bassetlaw constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by brianjrvs on Jan 30, 2021 20:36:38 GMT
Not too sure of the precise geography but I presume Clumber Park is part of Sherwood Forest. Is it currently in Bassetlaw or Sherwood or even Newark? Centre Parcs is on the edge of Sherwood Forest. We went there in 1988 which must have been one of the first years that it was open. It is in Sherwood constituency. Clumber isn’t really in Sherwood Forest and is in Bassetlaw constituency. Clumber Park is historically part of Sherwood Forest (part of the Dukeries - Clumber House, Thoresby Hall, Welbeck Abbey and Rufford Abbey). But, yes Clumber is in Bassatlaw, as is Welbeck. Centre Parks is on the edge of Edwinstowe, which is also home to the Major Oak and the Sherwood Forest vositor centre. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 31, 2021 8:58:07 GMT
Lincolnshire - I have added Rutland to Stamford like everyone else, and there's no need to touch South Holland and Boston. I have however gone for linking Grantham with North Hykeham, rather than Sleaford, which produces in my view a much better map.
Leicestershire - Blaby district is the right size for a seat, so why not use it? If you do the county falls easily into place. North-West loses Ibstock to Bosworth, which drops Ratby & Markfield into Charnwood. Leicester is brought up to size for 3 seats by adding Thurmaston (just as much part of the urban area as Braunstone or Oadby & Wigston. Link Lutterworth with the latter district (the Countesthorpe ward of Blaby makes this look a bit odd, but if it bothers you there are options to add it). Market Harborough and Melton link nicely - you just have to lose 1 ward (the infamous Frisby on the Wreake). Loughborough just has to lose a ward to Charnwood. You then find Charnwood is exactly the right size, as the Bosworth and Loughborough wards added match Thurmaston lost.
Nottinghamshire - This gave me what I feel to be unnecessary bother. I early found the solution used by others of linking Nottingham and Broxtowe for 4 seats by taking the Kimberley/Nuthall area into a Nottingham seat, and Eastwood into Broxtowe. I then got into a mess with ridiculous Newark and Sherwood seats as others have found, before scrapping the whole thing and going back to minimal change principles. And all you need to do is move 2 Mansfield wards into Ashfield and 1 Bassetlaw ward into Newark. This certainly isn't worse than moving an Ashfield ward into Mansfield to compensate for the loss of Warsop as others have proposed, and you don't need to butcher Gedling, and the Sherwood seat is virtually unaltered, and East Retford stays linked with Worksop.
Derbyshire - it took less than 5 minutes to find the same solution as everyone else of taking Hilton and Hatton into Derbyshire Dales.
Northamptonshire - I await the new ward figures but note there are 57 wards for 7 seats, and it should be possible to find 1 combination of 9 wards plus 6 combinations of 8 wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 31, 2021 10:31:49 GMT
I have further tweaked my Notts, after ward realignments, this scheme moves fewer than 25,000 electors between seats and is actually reasonable.  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 31, 2021 13:12:23 GMT
I've liked mattb 's plan above and I'm completely blown away by the sheer simplicity of John Chanin 's Notts scheme in the previous post. You actually need to take two Bassetlaw wards into Newark (assuming you don't want to split E Retford), and this involves a few small adjustments further south, but you can then come up with something like this - not dissimilar to mattb 's scheme but with Gedling kept within its district and with Sutton-in-Ashfield kept together at the price of taking a bite out of Mansfield. Oh, and Castle looks to be a more logical addition than Leen Valley to get the numbers up in Nottm E.
What I'm posting here isn't quite minimum change, because it would be possible to shift fewer wards. For instance, if Ashfield retained Brinsley it would then need to take only one ward from Mansfield; but this arrangement would mean two orphan wards in Ashfield. So I'd describe this plan as being based on 'managed minimum change' as opposed to 'pure minimum change'.
Bassetlaw - 75388. Loses Sturton and Beckingham to Newark (or, instead of Beckingham, Clayworth or even Welbeck if preferred). Newark - 76863. Gains two wards from Bassetlaw; loses Lowdham and Dover Beck at the other end. Mansfield - 72796. Loses Brick Kiln and Grange Farm. Actually you can take any two wards you like. They are all integral parts of Mansfield so it's just a matter of doing the least damage, and it's no worse than taking Sutton Jct out of Ashfield. Ashfield - 71703. Gains the two Mansfield wards and loses its Browtowe element.
Sherwood - 76543. Gains Lowdham and Dover Beck; loses Dumbles. Regarding the name: I'm still old-fashioned enough to think a constituency should be named after a place it actually contains, but the name is well established and we're going for (more or less) minimum change, so I'm going to wince and swallow it - until the next review, anyway. Gedling - 75795. Gains Dumbles. Entirely within Gedling district. Rushcliffe - 76171. Unchanged. In the circumstances I'm sticking to another terrible name, meaningless to the 99% of the population unacquainted with ancient hundreds. Broxtowe - 72461. Loses the Nuthalls and Kimberley; gains Eastwood and Brinsley. Regarding the name, the same comments apply as for Rushcliffe. Nottingham North - 74515. Gains the Kimberley/Nuthall area and Leen Valley; loses Bilborough. Nottingham West - 76076. Gains Bilborough; loses Leen Valley and Castle. I've changed the name from Nottm S but I wouldn't go to the stake over it. Nottingham East - 75327. Gains Castle.
Edited to add: If Lowdham and Dover Beck are felt to be out of place in Sherwood, they can be kept in Newark, with Newark and Sherwood then swapping Southwell and Boughton to balance the numbers, which in this case are: Newark 76991; Sherwood 76415. My immediate reaction is that this creates more logical seats and is no worse in terms of minimum change because it's exchanging two wards between Sherwood and Newark instead of switching two Newark wards into Sherwood as on the map.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 31, 2021 13:36:50 GMT
I've liked mattb 's plan above and I'm completely blown away by the sheer simplicity of John Chanin 's Notts scheme in the previous post. You actually need to take two Bassetlaw wards into Newark (assuming you don't want to split E Retford), and this involves a few small adjustments further south, but you can then come up with something like this - not dissimilar to mattb 's scheme but with Gedling kept within its district and with Sutton-in-Ashfield kept together at the price of taking a bite out of Mansfield. Oh, and Castle looks to be a more logical addition than Leen Valley to get the numbers up in Nottm E. What I'm posting here isn't quite minimum change, because it would be possible to shift fewer wards. For instance, if Ashfield retained Brinsley it would then need to take only one ward from Mansfield; but this arrangement would mean two orphan wards in Ashfield. So I'd describe this plan as being based on 'managed minimum change' as opposed to 'pure minimum change'. Hmmm - your plan moves more electors just within Nottingham than mine moves in the whole county - and getting on for three times as many as mine in total (67k vs 24k). It also has Bestwood St Albans in Gedling, but I don't think there is direct road link to the rest of the constituency (admittedly that is also the case for the part of that ward in the current seat). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 31, 2021 14:28:04 GMT
I've liked mattb 's plan above and I'm completely blown away by the sheer simplicity of John Chanin 's Notts scheme in the previous post. You actually need to take two Bassetlaw wards into Newark (assuming you don't want to split E Retford), and this involves a few small adjustments further south, but you can then come up with something like this - not dissimilar to mattb 's scheme but with Gedling kept within its district and with Sutton-in-Ashfield kept together at the price of taking a bite out of Mansfield. Oh, and Castle looks to be a more logical addition than Leen Valley to get the numbers up in Nottm E. What I'm posting here isn't quite minimum change, because it would be possible to shift fewer wards. For instance, if Ashfield retained Brinsley it would then need to take only one ward from Mansfield; but this arrangement would mean two orphan wards in Ashfield. So I'd describe this plan as being based on 'managed minimum change' as opposed to 'pure minimum change'. Hmmm - your plan moves more electors just within Nottingham than mine moves in the whole county - and getting on for three times as many as mine in total (67k vs 24k). It also has Bestwood St Albans in Gedling, but I don't think there is direct road link to the rest of the constituency (admittedly that is also the case for the part of that ward in the current seat). Well, I'm sure this is true. But if shifting as few voters as possible is the priority, then I could put Leen Valley into Nottm E, allowing Bilborough to stay in Nottm N and Castle in Nottm W; leave Kimberley in Broxtowe, Brinsley in Ashfield; and move only one ward out of Mansfield - which at a rough calculation is about 28,000 fewer votes shifted. But it also means Leen Valley badly out of place in a Nottm E seat, Kimberley separated from the Nuthalls, and two orphan wards in Ashfield. So I think the extra voter shifts are justified - it's what I meant by 'managed minimum change' as opposed to 'pure minimum change'. And I could fairly add that, whereas most plans either take bites out of Mansfield or separate Sutton Jcn from Ashfield, I think yours is unique in doing both; as well as needlessly adding non-Gedling wards to Gedling and having a Nottm E seat that stretches almost to the western boundary of the city. But not wanting to conclude on a critical note (and just in case I haven't mentioned this before let me say that I really admire your plans both in E Mids and elsewhere), what I'd take from the discussion kicked off by John Chanin last night is that while we may differ on the exact number of voters to be shifted and the proper placement of Leen Valley, it's possible to draw an entirely reasonable plan for Notts that shows a high degree of respect for the existing pattern. (This even extends to the preservation of some truly deplorable constituency names.)
Edited to add: And while I was taking potshots I forgot to say that your Sherwood extends into four LAs: Ashfield, Gedling, Newark & Sherwood, Mansfield.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 31, 2021 15:07:54 GMT
Well, I'm sure this is true. But if shifting as few voters as possible is the priority, then I could put Leen Valley into Nottm E, allowing Bilborough to stay in Nottm N and Castle in Nottm W; leave Kimberley in Broxtowe, Brinsley in Ashfield; and move only one ward out of Mansfield - which at a rough calculation is about 28,000 fewer votes shifted. But it also means Leen Valley badly out of place in a Nottm E seat, Kimberley separated from the Nuthalls, and two orphan wards in Ashfield. So I think the extra voter shifts are justified - it's what I meant by 'managed minimum change' as opposed to 'pure minimum change'. And I could fairly add that, whereas most plans either take bites out of Mansfield or separate Sutton Jcn from Ashfield, I think yours is unique in doing both; as well as needlessly adding non-Gedling wards to Gedling and having a Nottm E seat that stretches almost to the western boundary of the city. But not wanting to conclude on a critical note (and just in case I haven't mentioned this before let me say that I really admire your plans both in E Mids and elsewhere), what I'd take from the discussion kicked off by John Chanin last night is that while we may differ on the exact number of voters to be shifted and the proper placement of Leen Valley, it's possible to draw an entirely reasonable plan for Notts that shows a high degree of respect for the existing pattern. (This even extends to the preservation of some truly deplorable constituency names.) Edited to add: And while I was taking potshots I forgot to say that your Sherwood extends into four LAs: Ashfield, Gedling, Newark & Sherwood, Mansfield.
OK fair enough  (well mostly - I honestly can't say that being uncomfortable with Nottingham E as a constituency name justifies shifting an extra 20,000 people around - and arguably Leen Valley had no business being in S in the first place!) It is true I place less emphasis on LA boundaries than many in here. In counties where the total number of seats is not changing, it should surely be possible to avoid shifting many tens of thousands of voters between seats. |
|
|
|
Post by simonb on Feb 1, 2021 15:07:09 GMT
I have tried to come up with a minimum change scheme by treating Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire as a combined unit.
Whilst superficially unattractive it may make it easier to have minimal changes across both counties. The only crossing I have made is to transfer Jacksdale ward from Ashfield into Amber Valley. Whilst it does cross the county boundary the villages of Ironville and Jacksdale are very close. This puts the remainder of Ashfield in quota and Amber Valley would also remain in quota
The remainder of Derbyshire can go ahead as most people have by proposed with the Hatton/Hilton move to Derbyshire Dales and South West Parishes from Dales to Mid Derbyshire
In Nottinghamshire I have moved Ransom Woods Ward from Mansfield to Sherwood. Sturton and Beckingham transfer from Bassetlaw to Newark. Lowdham from Newark to Gedling
I would then leave the city as three seats and split one South ward between North and East. Probably Leen Valley
Broxtowe and Rushcliffe as is
I’m sure if I have my sums wrong someone will correct me ( i’m a first time poster so be gentle)
|
|
