J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 13:56:47 GMT
2023 Review - South East
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 5, 2021 16:32:38 GMT
Looks like the pairings will be:
Berks/Ox
Hants (inc Southampton)/Surrey
The two Sussex
Bucks/Milton Keynes
Kent/Medway
Portsmouth standing alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 5, 2021 17:57:06 GMT
Looks like the pairings will be: Berks/Ox Hants (inc Southampton)/Surrey The two Sussex Bucks/Milton Keynes Kent/Medway Portsmouth standing alone. Quotas by county (including unitary authorities ceremonially within said county): Berkshire: 8.65 Buckinghamshire: 8.00 East Sussex: 8.38 Hampshire: 18.43 Kent: 18.05 Oxfordshire: 6.81 Surrey: 11.71 West Sussex: 8.81 Oxfordshire and Surrey can both in fact stand alone and Berkshire can be paired with Hampshire (not ideal, though). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 5, 2021 18:18:44 GMT
The target is 89 seats excluding Wight.
I'd start off trying
Bucks inc. MK (8)
Oxfordshire (7)
Surrey (12)
Kent inc. Medway (18)
Both Sussexes inc. B & H (17)
Portsmouth (2)
Hants CC, Southampton and Berkshire (25)
Berkshire could stand alone but it would be tight, and the pairing makes Hampshire easier as well.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 5, 2021 18:46:27 GMT
The target is 89 seats excluding Wight. I'd start off trying Bucks inc. MK (8) Oxfordshire (7) Surrey (12) Kent inc. Medway (18) Both Sussexes inc. B & H (17) Portsmouth (2) Hants CC, Southampton and Berkshire (25) Berkshire could stand alone but it would be tight, and the pairing makes Hampshire easier as well. Hmmm, looking at that again I'd be tempted to pair Berks, Surrey & Hants so you maximise your options in terms of sorting out the parts of seats each county is due and you can have the most sensible solutions possible for the tri-county area (so you don't have to have parts of Hants choose between Berks or Surrey where communities cross the county boundaries with abandon). |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 5, 2021 22:14:38 GMT
The target is 89 seats excluding Wight. I'd start off trying Bucks inc. MK (8) Oxfordshire (7) Surrey (12) Kent inc. Medway (18) Both Sussexes inc. B & H (17) Portsmouth (2) Hants CC, Southampton and Berkshire (25) Berkshire could stand alone but it would be tight, and the pairing makes Hampshire easier as well. Who benefits from the three extra seats? Oxon, Bucks/MK and ? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 5, 2021 22:17:14 GMT
One more in Kent - it's got 17 at the moment. The extra one is probably in the south-east of the county - Folkestone, Hythe, Ashford.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 5, 2021 22:31:38 GMT
 Milton Keynes North 71264 Milton Keynes South 76064 Buckingham & Bletchley 73772 Marlow & Princes Risborough 75942 Aylesbury 73318 Chesham & Amersham 70993 Wycombe 75088 Beaconsfield 70646 Unfortunate that Chesham & Amersham gets broken up like that when its fine as it is but there's no way to get Beaconsfield within quota once you've taken out Marlow (or if you didn't take out Marlow) |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 5, 2021 23:06:33 GMT
Milton Keynes North 71264 Milton Keynes South 76064 Buckingham & Bletchley 73772 Marlow & Princes Risborough 75942 Aylesbury 73318 Chesham & Amersham 70993 Wycombe 75088 Beaconsfield 70646 Unfortunate that Chesham & Amersham gets broken up like that when its fine as it is but there's no way to get Beaconsfield within quota once you've taken out Marlow (or if you didn't take out Marlow) Gosh, Labour won’t be happy with Bletchley being extracted from marginal MK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 23:09:05 GMT
Milton Keynes North 71264 Milton Keynes South 76064 Buckingham & Bletchley 73772 Marlow & Princes Risborough 75942 Aylesbury 73318 Chesham & Amersham 70993 Wycombe 75088 Beaconsfield 70646 Unfortunate that Chesham & Amersham gets broken up like that when its fine as it is but there's no way to get Beaconsfield within quota once you've taken out Marlow (or if you didn't take out Marlow) That Marlow & Risborough seat makes me wonder if pairing Bucks and Oxon might be better even if the numbers don't require it |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 6, 2021 7:43:56 GMT
Milton Keynes North 71264 Milton Keynes South 76064 Buckingham & Bletchley 73772 Marlow & Princes Risborough 75942 Aylesbury 73318 Chesham & Amersham 70993 Wycombe 75088 Beaconsfield 70646 Unfortunate that Chesham & Amersham gets broken up like that when its fine as it is but there's no way to get Beaconsfield within quota once you've taken out Marlow (or if you didn't take out Marlow) Gosh, Labour won’t be happy with Bletchley being extracted from marginal MK. I don't think that can be avoided (not that I necessarily want to). The Bletchley wards are a bit larger than the wards further West so of you put them in instead of say Stony Stratford and the Shenleys MKS would be over quota. The Milton Keynes wards are an awkward size in that most combinations of 7 wards are under quota and most of 8 are over so without splitting wards this is about the only plausible arrangement. Still Labour can be happy with Wycombe (and MKS would still be winnable I think) |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,562
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 6, 2021 8:17:33 GMT
Gosh, Labour won’t be happy with Bletchley being extracted from marginal MK. I don't think that can be avoided (not that I necessarily want to). The Bletchley wards are a bit larger than the wards further West so of you put them in instead of say Stony Stratford and the Shenleys MKS would be over quota. The Milton Keynes wards are an awkward size in that most combinations of 7 wards are under quota and most of 8 are over so without splitting wards this is about the only plausible arrangement. Still Labour can be happy with Wycombe (and MKS would still be winnable I think) It's more the west Bucks/Marlow and Risborough seat which made me cringe. It's a reasonable solution in terms of numbers, but contains a selection of places where there would be very little reason to visit. I lived in Marlow for a few years, and the town looks to either Wycombe or Maidenhead. Being in Beaconsfield is odd enough, but this one really us a boundary of convenience. It wouldn't be the first, though. Labour would be happy with it as Wycombe would be a Labour marginal under these boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 6, 2021 8:48:27 GMT
It does look a bit weird and it isn't ideal but the bulk of the seat is basically the parts of Wycombe district outside High Wycombe itself with only a relatively small number of voters in the more sparsely populated Aylesbury Vale part (NB - the seat would have to include Quainton as well - made a miscalculation on the numbers due to the split wards around Aylesbury). Something of this sort is more or less inevitable
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 6, 2021 8:59:32 GMT
I'm getting confused now. What boundaries should we actually be using for Buckinghamshire, and do we have the figures? I thought the new unitary's wards were the old county divisions, but the names in the spreadsheet don't correspond to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 6, 2021 9:05:16 GMT
I'm getting confused now. What boundaries should we actually be using for Buckinghamshire, and do we have the figures? I thought the new unitary's wards were the old county divisions, but the names in the spreadsheet don't correspond to them. They're using the old district wards (which is a huge relief as the CC divisions would I think be a nightmare to work with) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 6, 2021 9:15:50 GMT
I'm getting confused now. What boundaries should we actually be using for Buckinghamshire, and do we have the figures? I thought the new unitary's wards were the old county divisions, but the names in the spreadsheet don't correspond to them. They're using the old district wards (which is a huge relief as the CC divisions would I think be a nightmare to work with) Are you sure? Is this not a case of "prospective" wards where they're going to update the data later and use the new figures? (And yes, it'd be better if they didn't...) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 6, 2021 9:38:45 GMT
They're using the old district wards (which is a huge relief as the CC divisions would I think be a nightmare to work with) Are you sure? Is this not a case of "prospective" wards where they're going to update the data later and use the new figures? (And yes, it'd be better if they didn't...) No I'm not sure. I really hope they don't do that as the county council divisions are shit and you're going to have to end up splitting them left right and centre or end up with some really weird convoluted boundaries |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 6, 2021 9:45:32 GMT
A first draft of a seven seat Oxfordshire.
Banbury All of Cherwell district except the Kidlington and Bicester wards and Launton & Otmoor; from West Oxfordshire district Chipping Norton, Kingham etc., The Bartons. 72,008
Bicester & Thame From Cherwell district the Kidlington and Bicester wards and Launton & Otmoor; from South Oxfordshire district Chinnor, Forest Hill & Holton, Hasely Brook, Thame; from West Oxfordshire district Woodstock. 72,867
Witney The parts of West Oxfordshire district not in the two above seats. 70,276
Oxford West & Abingdon From Vale of White Horse the Abingdon wards, Botley & Sunningwell, Cumnor, Marcham, Wootton; from Oxford city Carfax & Jericho, Cutteslowe & Sunnymead, Osney & St Thomas, Summertown, Walton Manor, Wolvercote. 72,004
Oxford East All of Oxford city not in the previous seat. 72,371
Henley All of South Oxfordshire district not in Bicester & Thame except the three Didcot wards; from Vale of White Horse Blewbury & Harwell. 70,233
Wantage From South Oxfordshire district the three Didcot wards; from Vale of White Horse everything not in Henley or Oxford West & Abingdon. 69,972
Basically the new seat is formed from the Bicester and Kidlington areas plus the north of the old Henley seat, OxWAb loses Kidlington but regains Oxford city centre, Banbury takes on Chipping Norton, and Wantage and Henley are adjusted to make the numbers work. The boundary around Didcot is a bit awkward and double crosses the district border; I did find a way of avoiding the double crossing that by moving Didcot into Henley but it gave Wantage a weird extension east of the Thames.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 6, 2021 10:35:58 GMT
Are you sure? Is this not a case of "prospective" wards where they're going to update the data later and use the new figures? (And yes, it'd be better if they didn't...) No I'm not sure. I really hope they don't do that as the county council divisions are shit and you're going to have to end up splitting them left right and centre or end up with some really weird convoluted boundaries When was the Buckinghamshire Order for the ward boundary changes passed? We would then know which set of ward boundaries they will use. Would have been helpful if BCE produced a list for each local authority to state which set they will use. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jan 6, 2021 11:13:29 GMT
No I'm not sure. I really hope they don't do that as the county council divisions are shit and you're going to have to end up splitting them left right and centre or end up with some really weird convoluted boundaries When was the Buckinghamshire Order for the ward boundary changes passed? We would then know which set of ward boundaries they will use. Would have been helpful if BCE produced a list for each local authority to state which set they will use. The Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019 was made on 22nd May 2019. The unitary ward boundaries, identical to the CC electoral divisions, were in the May 2020 Ordnance Survey release. These are almost certainly the boundaries that will be used for the review but the electorates have not been released yet. |
|
