|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 9, 2021 21:54:28 GMT
What about West Nottinghamshire for that one.  Lol….May be a tad controversial….both towns do form part of the Nottingham conurbation rather than Derby tad contr Hmmm ... just a tad ... they have Derby postcodes and Derby phone numbers ... |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jun 9, 2021 22:51:54 GMT
Lol….May be a tad controversial….both towns do form part of the Nottingham conurbation rather than Derby tad contr Hmmm ... just a tad ... they have Derby postcodes and Derby phone numbers ... I am not sure, they are all Nottingham Forest fans. Not a Ram among them. West Nottingham it is. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 9, 2021 22:55:24 GMT
Having had a close look I don’t think this proposal would change the colour of any of the current constituencies on 2019 figures. That said Broxtowe would become ultra marginal and likely to flip on any sort of swing to Labour. Gedling becomes slightly more comfortable for the conservatives but not by much and will certainly be in play next time. The additions to Nottingham North may make it closer but would still be notionally Labour In Northamptonshire the two seat in Northampton will become more Conservative however Corby will become a better prospect for Labour. The additional Rutland and Stamford seat will be safely Conservative The Leicestershire changes shouldn’t change any of the seats and Derbyshire changes by so little there is no change their either. Overall I don’t think this is a bad attempt. I don’t like the movement of the Broxtowe wards into the city but there doesn’t seem a neat alternative My biggest objection is the changes to names- Ilkeston and Long Eaton ….yuk Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a better name for the current Erewash seat, which does not cover all of the eponymous district. The same goes for renaming Bassetlaw Worksop & Retford. However, "South Lincolnshire" should simply be called Spalding. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 9, 2021 23:00:32 GMT
Having had a close look I don’t think this proposal would change the colour of any of the current constituencies on 2019 figures. That said Broxtowe would become ultra marginal and likely to flip on any sort of swing to Labour. Gedling becomes slightly more comfortable for the conservatives but not by much and will certainly be in play next time. The additions to Nottingham North may make it closer but would still be notionally Labour In Northamptonshire the two seat in Northampton will become more Conservative however Corby will become a better prospect for Labour. The additional Rutland and Stamford seat will be safely Conservative The Leicestershire changes shouldn’t change any of the seats and Derbyshire changes by so little there is no change their either. Overall I don’t think this is a bad attempt. I don’t like the movement of the Broxtowe wards into the city but there doesn’t seem a neat alternative My biggest objection is the changes to names- Ilkeston and Long Eaton ….yuk Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a better name for the current Erewash seat, which does not cover all of the eponymous district. The same goes for renaming Bassetlaw Worksop & Retford. However, "South Lincolnshire" should simply be called Spalding. I hadn't noticed 'South Lincolnshire' - what a stupid name. South Holland would have been fine (or just Holland if they're worried it extends too far North) but I agree Spalding would be best. I think Ilkeston & Long Eaton is too much of a mouthful and they should have just used one of the town's names - better than Erewash though which is one of those stupid district names most people would have no clue where it is (or how to pronounce it) |
|
|
|
Post by simonb on Jun 10, 2021 8:32:43 GMT
Lol….May be a tad controversial….both towns do form part of the Nottingham conurbation rather than Derby tad contr Hmmm ... just a tad ... they have Derby postcodes and Derby phone numbers ... Long Eaton has a Nottingham postcode (NG10) and Nottingham phone numbers whilst Ilkeston does have a Derby postcode (DE7) but Nottingham dialling code Surrounding villages such as Draycott have Derby postcodes and phone numbers The overall identity is somewhat mixed as going into a pub in either town when Forest are playing Derby will tell you. That said the majority of support in both towns is for Forest |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 10, 2021 9:41:46 GMT
Not much comment about Blaby, Oadby and Wigston but an area of Lib Dem strength at local level that might prove interesting in future.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 10, 2021 10:46:00 GMT
In Leicestershire, it looks like you can fix the split of Sileby by rotating wards between Loughborough, Melton & Syston and Mid Leicestershire - Sileby and The Wolds go into Loughborough, Birstall in with Melton and Quorn and Mountsorrel into Mid Leicestershire.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 10, 2021 11:50:09 GMT
Hmmm ... just a tad ... they have Derby postcodes and Derby phone numbers ... Long Eaton has a Nottingham postcode (NG10) and Nottingham phone numbers whilst Ilkeston does have a Derby postcode (DE7) but Nottingham dialling code Surrounding villages such as Draycott have Derby postcodes and phone numbers The overall identity is somewhat mixed as going into a pub in either town when Forest are playing Derby will tell you. That said the majority of support in both towns is for Forest As has been discussed elsewhere on this Forum postcodes are designed purely for the practical purposes of Royal Mail delivery (and I presume most telephone dialling codes relate to where the wiring went when installed). They are a poor proxy for community identity. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 11, 2021 11:51:32 GMT
Another attempt at Leicestershire - minimum change for much of the county (Leicester and the West of the county) - the removal of Rutland means minimum change does not equal little change. Charnwood is forced further West and South to the point that the name becomes almost inappropriate but I can't think of a better one - in any case, while it includes little of the district of that name it does include most of the forest. The two southern seats have been completely re-orientated. This is partly forced by the numbers not working with the existing arrangements but also because I think its desirable in itself - a suburban/exurban seat to the South of Leicester, mirroring Charnwood to its North and West and a Harborough seat which is quite closely aligned with the district of that name. I quite like the compact Hinckley seat from my previous plan but it seems more plausible just to pare Bosworth down a bit like this (maybe next time I'll get my Hinckley..)  Pretty close to BCE proposal, two outer suburban seats to west and south of Leicester. In BCE proposals Glenfield has been annexed by Leicester West, I wonder how that will go down. BCE Blaby, Oadby and Wigston has an odd tail to the SW of Narborough, whereas your more compact Blaby and Wigston including Narborough would be neater. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 11, 2021 13:39:59 GMT
Agreed - a definite improvement on the BCE plan.
But surely the BCE is right to abandon 'Charnwood' in favour of 'Mid Leics'. Or have you got a thing about 'Mid' seats?
Also on the subject of names in this region, the 'Nottingham S' proposed by BCE looks much more like 'Nottingham W' to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 11, 2021 13:53:32 GMT
I'm not sure. Aside from the orphan ward in Harborough, Pete's plan does cut up Enderby. The BCE lines are ugly in Leicester and Blaby, Oadby & Wigston (which should be renamed Leicester South) has an ugly tail, but Glenfield fits perfectly well in Leicester West.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2021 14:02:20 GMT
Not much comment about Blaby, Oadby and Wigston but an area of Lib Dem strength at local level that might prove interesting in future. It's never done a damn thing to help them win Harborough |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 11, 2021 21:51:39 GMT
I think it would be neater if both Ibstock wards were moved into the Hinckley & Bosworth constituency (which should be just named Hinckley; Market Bosworth is only of historical value in constituency naming terms and the constituency not only does not encompass the Hinckley & Bosworth district but also stretches into NW Leicestershire) rather than the Appleby and Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 11, 2021 21:55:14 GMT
I think it would be neater if both Ibstock wards were moved into the Hinckley & Bosworth constituency (which should be just named Hinckley; Market Bosworth is only of historical value in constituency naming terms and the constituency not only does not encompass the Hinckley & Bosworth district but also stretches into NW Leicestershire) rather than the Appleby and Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe wards. A bit of Ibstock appears to be in Sence Valley ward too. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 12, 2021 4:39:36 GMT
Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a better name for the current Erewash seat, which does not cover all of the eponymous district. The same goes for renaming Bassetlaw Worksop & Retford. However, "South Lincolnshire" should simply be called Spalding. I hadn't noticed 'South Lincolnshire' - what a stupid name. South Holland would have been fine (or just Holland if they're worried it extends too far North) but I agree Spalding would be best. "Holland without Boston". |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 13, 2021 19:04:35 GMT
Nottinghamshire is almost exactly as I had it. Leicestershire isn’t but is good. Northamptonshire can be done quite reasonably without splitting the county wards, but I have no objection to the Boundary Commission ignoring them. My only discontent is with the continued linking of Sleaford with North Hykeham.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 2, 2021 9:11:05 GMT
Given that ward splitting is clearly permitted in Northamptonshire, I thought I'd take a look at what you can achieve with 3 ward splits, with a particular objective being to get the bit of Wellingborough in Earls Barton ward into the Wellingborough seat. That's only 792 electors (it appears to be the WMA polling district) but it does require some surprisingly extensive changes:  Wellingborough 76659 Kettering 73460 Corby 75832 Daventry 76940 South Northants 76815 Northampton South 74480 Northampton North 75713 The exchange of territory between Kettering and Corby is a bit more extensive than I'd wanted. I did look into whether splitting Irthlingborough ward along the Nene would help, but that leaves Corby slightly too large. In this map I've split Bugbrooke ward, but in practice I'd probably split Woodford & Weeden instead (with Woodford and a couple of small parishes going with Daventry.) The third split is Hackleton & Grange Park. The BCE were quite proud about keeping the old Northampton borough within two seats, but a) that no longer exists, so it's not a meaningful achievement and b) Grange Park is exactly the same sort of community as you find in the Hunsburys and Nene Valley, so it's a natural enough fit. This then means you can stick slightly closer to the current lines in Northampton North, although perhaps with slightly weaker boundaries on the ground. Northampton North would be rather stronger for Labour as a result, Northampton South much less so. Corby would also be a tiny bit more marginal. I should add that this is very similar to Pete Whitehead's first plan for the county. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 5, 2021 14:30:46 GMT
I've come up with an alternative plan for Northamptonshire that I really quite like in terms of cohesiveness, but it uses four ward splits. Putting it out there to be kicked around:  Northampton South 76011 Northampton North 77013 - includes the parishes of Boughton, Moulton and Overstone from Moulton division. There are already housing developments crossing the boundary between these parishes and Northampton and there are planned to be a lot more. South Northamptonshire 73269 Daventry 77061 - stretches further east than I'd like. You can fix this by arranging the two outer West Northants seats east/west rather than north/south, but this is disruptive, creates a donut and isn't that much better Wellingborough 76214 - includes 792 electors from the Earls Barton ward who live within the bounds of Wellingborough town council Corby 76055 - splits Irthlingborough ward along the line of the Nene and Corby Rural ward along the prior ward boundaries. You can avoid this by swapping Kettering 74276 - gains the former rural west ward from Corby I think extending Northampton to the north is the natural solution if you're willing to split a ward, and it's a very efficient use of electors. But I suspect I'm missing a trick elsewhere in the county and if anybody has a variation on this that splits only three wards (including Moulton and Earls Barton) then I'd love to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on Feb 9, 2022 9:46:46 GMT
Hi All
I generally view rather than post but the BCE publication of submissions is interesting.
I have had an amateur look at the East Mids submissions and there is an Lab/LD agreement on changing the Northampton proposals. Anyone more expert than me have a view on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 9, 2022 10:24:04 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'.
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.
It's good to see some love for the E Mids after a seven-month interval with no posts at all. I'm reposting my own map, above, from January 2021, because I've just realized that the BCE initial proposal is virtually identical to it. In fact the solitary difference, as far as I can see, is that Beckingham and Clayworth wards are exchanged (which I specifically mentioned as an option). |
|
