|
|
Post by islington on Jan 20, 2021 15:12:09 GMT
The tight numbers make all three counties challenging but I think we've made a lot of progress in treating them separately. As Pete says, Surrey seems to work out reasonably well for 12 seats. Berks and Hants are more difficult and initially I felt certain that a cross-county seat would be needed. But we've now seen some plans for 9 seats in Berks that appear workable (not necessarily pretty). And as for Hants, although it has proved the toughest nut to crack of the three, I'd say that it is gradually yielding to treatment and I'm increasingly confident that a workable 18-seat plan will eventually emerge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 16:14:19 GMT
We shouldn't have encouraged him  |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 20, 2021 18:00:13 GMT
For Berks to stand alone and squeeze in a whole extra seat requires very significant redrawing of most of the Berks seats. Otherwise, you need to find some extra electors. Unless I'm missing something, you can't get them from either Oxon or Surrey (both are tight for their extra seats as it is). I haven't looked at whether it could work to get the extra from Bucks. But we know Hants has surplus electors and sharing part of a new seat with Berks makes it easier to preserve the existing pattern of seats in the south of the county. So you're left with either significantly reconfiguring the existing seats across both those counties; or having the extra seat shared between them which actually helps in both counties to preserve the existing pattern of seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 20, 2021 18:07:19 GMT
For Berks to stand alone and squeeze in a whole extra seat requires very significant redrawing of most of the Berks seats. Otherwise, you need to find some extra electors. Unless I'm missing something, you can't get them from either Oxon or Surrey (both are tight for their extra seats as it is). I haven't looked at whether it could work to get the extra from Bucks. But we know Hants has surplus electors and sharing part of a new seat with Berks makes it easier to preserve the existing pattern of seats in the south of the county. So you're left with either significantly reconfiguring the existing seats across both those counties; or having the extra seat shared between them which actually helps in both counties to preserve the existing pattern of seats. You can do it with Bucks with the district wards. Electorates for the county divisions that will actually be used haven't been released. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 18:54:45 GMT
I still think adding Edenbridge to Tandridge to avoid the latter nicking a Reigate ward makes for a much neater arrangement in Surrey
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 20, 2021 19:25:22 GMT
All the 18 seat Hampshires belong on the pitchfork thread (especially due to the carnage they do to Scum & environs). I maintain that the natural pairing for Hants is Surrey in this review and I hope that's where the BCE end up. At the beginning of the thread you suggested this 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). That was before I actually tried it and got into a horrible mess and ended up with a very unsatisfactory three county seat which split communities. Aldershot/Farnham pairing is the key to Hants/Surrey cross county seat. It means that Fleet, Farnborough, Aldershot & Farnham can all be paired with the other respective towns in their environs rather than leaving any stuck out on their own as Farnham is at the moment. On the Berkshire issue, its shape doesn't lend itself to sensible seats whatever you do (including the mess you have at the moment) so something even more unsatisfactory isn't much of a step down. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 19:47:52 GMT
Hmm.. what you suggest is certainly plausible. It still leaves us with a problem in Berkshire   |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 21, 2021 15:38:31 GMT
Hmm.. what you suggest is certainly plausible. It still leaves us with a problem in Berkshire Pete, I'm sure you're right and it can be done, but I make Meon Valley 82224 on that configuration. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 21, 2021 16:26:30 GMT
I've taken another crack at Kent:  Dartford 76169 Gravesend 72866 Sevenoaks 75664 Tunbridge Wells 72622 Tonbridge & Malling 76489 Aylesford & Strood 72760 Rochester & Chatham 73489 Gillingham & Rainham 73951 Maidstone 76367 Mid Kent 69784 Sittingbourne & Sheppey 76818 Faversham & Tenterden 70439 Canterbury 72647 North Thanet 71829 South Thanet 71986 Dover 75855 Ashford 75342 Folkestone & Hythe 70023 West Kent isn't terribly different from a lot of maps here. I've recreated Rochester & Chatham, but that's purely wishful thinking on my part (and if you were trying to gerrymander a winnable seat there these days, Gillingham and Chatham is probably a more plausible option.) The boundaries round Maidstone look a little odd, but I'd stand by them - if you zoom in, you'll see a lot of neater-looking maps split Weavering in healf, which this plan avoids. In East Kent, a lot of other plans split up Canterbury unnecessarily, in ways that don't look that subtle to me. Faversham and Tenterden is not a very good seat, but I don't think it's any worse than the standard of boundaries we've come to expect in that bit of the county. It is also possible, with a few minor changes elsewhere, for the two mid-county seats to swap their portions of Swale and Tunbridge Wells districts, which probably moves fewer electors than this plan would. This is interesting with the two large central constituencies that would be a gift to the lucky Conservative candidates. It does seem to consolidate a number of areas for possible Labour wins in better times and it makes what seems for me odd-oriented Maidstone (mainly north) and Ashford (mainly east) and the Rochester and Chatham sets up a Labour opportunity. But it does pose interesting ideas and solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 21, 2021 16:27:41 GMT
Hmm.. what you suggest is certainly plausible. It still leaves us with a problem in Berkshire Pete, I'm sure you're right and it can be done, but I make Meon Valley 82224 on that configuration. Yes - evidently I have assigned Alresford & Itchen Valley to... Southampton Test (not even Southampton Itchen). And I had managed to get rid of the Bisley exclave too Oh well I'm not too concerned as this isn't really my favoured plan - I was just trialling Khunanup's suggestion. I'm sure it could be made to work anyway, but I can't particularly be arsed to try now |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 21, 2021 17:35:12 GMT
I've taken another crack at Kent: Dartford 76169 Gravesend 72866 Sevenoaks 75664 Tunbridge Wells 72622 Tonbridge & Malling 76489 Aylesford & Strood 72760 Rochester & Chatham 73489 Gillingham & Rainham 73951 Maidstone 76367 Mid Kent 69784 Sittingbourne & Sheppey 76818 Faversham & Tenterden 70439 Canterbury 72647 North Thanet 71829 South Thanet 71986 Dover 75855 Ashford 75342 Folkestone & Hythe 70023 West Kent isn't terribly different from a lot of maps here. I've recreated Rochester & Chatham, but that's purely wishful thinking on my part (and if you were trying to gerrymander a winnable seat there these days, Gillingham and Chatham is probably a more plausible option.) The boundaries round Maidstone look a little odd, but I'd stand by them - if you zoom in, you'll see a lot of neater-looking maps split Weavering in healf, which this plan avoids. In East Kent, a lot of other plans split up Canterbury unnecessarily, in ways that don't look that subtle to me. Faversham and Tenterden is not a very good seat, but I don't think it's any worse than the standard of boundaries we've come to expect in that bit of the county. It is also possible, with a few minor changes elsewhere, for the two mid-county seats to swap their portions of Swale and Tunbridge Wells districts, which probably moves fewer electors than this plan would. This is interesting with the two large central constituencies that would be a gift to the lucky Conservative candidates. It does seem to consolidate a number of areas for possible Labour wins in better times and it makes what seems for me odd-oriented Maidstone (mainly north) and Ashford (mainly east) and the Rochester and Chatham sets up a Labour opportunity. But it does pose interesting ideas and solutions. For Maidstone the idea was to keep together all the wards where there's a contiguous stream of development linking them to the core town, and then I figured the two wards covering Weavering fit slightly better with the rest than Bearsted plus Downswood. Ashford was mostly a consequence of the wards I removed from Folkestone and a desire to make sure that the Faversham seat didn't stretch into four authorities, although you can sort of argue that the Channel Tunnel is a shared interest between Ashford and the two North Downs wards - plus I don't know the area well enough to decide which villages are best added to the town to get the necessary numbers. I don't think any version of Maidstone is close to winnable for Labour (though it would have been good for the Lib Dems in the early 2000s) and Ashford would be unlikely even in landslide conditions (though if I was trying to do that, I don't think I'd care what I included outside the town, I'd just want the electorate as close to 70,000 as possible.) Rochester & Chatham is indeed partially partisan in intention, although I do think that arrangement is superior to Chatham & Aylesford. It's not going to happen, though. |
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jan 21, 2021 18:15:25 GMT
 Arguably, to make the best Oxfordshire, you've got to make a mess of Oxford. Splitting Oxford three ways is never going to happen, however. With a 7.5% variation, you can make the below constituencies. Damn this government!  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 21, 2021 19:50:27 GMT
Here's yet another stab at 18 seats in Hants, with huge thanks in particular to EAL. I've utilized his ingenious version of Basingstoke to absorb more electors in the north of the county and relieve pressure elsewhere. I've also used his version of Southampton, which has far more respect for the city boundary than my previous plan.
North East Hampshire - 75489. A very reasonable seat, apart from the Yateley split. Basingstoke - 76948. As per EAL. It's ungainly but ingenious and - unlike other versions of this seat - it soaks up plenty of electors. Alton - 76093. Not the prettiest seat ever created but far from the worst; probably best seen as the successor to E Hants. North West Hampshire - 74063. I'm happy with this configuation, with Andover nested nicely in the seat. Winchester - 75363. Compared with the current seat, loses the Alresford area and takes in Stockbridge. This iteration is less attractive than my previous proposal but still perfectly acceptable. East Hampshire - 75518. Or it could be Petersfield; best seen as the successor to Meon Valley. Mid Hampshire - 75538. Really 'Eastleigh sans Eastleigh'; I couldn't think what else to call it, and I can never say no to a 'Mid' seat. Possibly 'Bishop's Waltham'? Romsey and Eastleigh - 76925. I tried to avoid putting these two places in the same seat. It also includes two Southampton wards.
Southampton Test - 72438. As per EAL. Wholly contained within the city. Southampton Itchen - 76402. Also as per EAL.
All other seats as I had them before.
I'm not sure whether it's etiquette to reply to one's own post but I've just noticed that it's possible for Winchester to take Romsey town and Ampfield in exchange for the Chandler's Ford area. It's definitely tidier than the map above, especially what now becomes the Eastleigh seat; while as for Romsey, it was in the Winchester seat prior to 1974 so there's precedent. This rearrangement gives: Winchester 76650; Eastleigh (or So'ton N & Eastleigh) 75638. (All other seats as before.) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 22, 2021 15:13:49 GMT
If (and it remains a big 'if' for me even though I have a strong bias in favour of respecting county boundaries) we are going to try and squeeze 9 whole seats into Berkshire then we do have to get down to the nitty-gritty which means that in order to have something approximating sensible seats which respect natural communities we are going to need to split a couple of wards. The case has been well made recently on the thread about boundary-drawing policy issues I have taken mattb's 9 seat plan for Berkshire and made a couple of amendments to draw the seats as he would have wanted them to be had the numbers allowed, that is to say to reorient the Newbury seat and the new 'Mid Berkshire' seat so that the boundary runs from North to South instead of East to West and to avoid placing part of New Windsor in the Maidenhead seat.  The four seats in the centre of the county are excellent with the Reading seats following similar lines to the seats of these names which existed between 1974 and 1983 and both Bracknell and Wokingham seats being wholly contained within their respective boroughs. The only problem is a that the Maidenhead and Tilehurst seats are very slightly undersized. In looking in detail at the configuration of wards in Windsor it became apparent that part of the Clewer & Dedworth West ward is actually technically outside of New Windsor and within the parish of Bray. There are two polling districts here (HA and JA) each with an electorate of between 450 and 500. Together they would constitute too many voters (as would leave Windsor short) but either one would bring Maidenhead into quota without leaving Windsor short (I suggest HA, the northern one of the two fits best) It also occurred to me that large rural wards such as those in West Berkshire are often comprised of a number of small parishes which themselves correspond with polling districts and so it is the case here. If we were to take the Hermitage parish/PD from Chieveley and Cold Ash and add it to the Tilehurst seat we would bring it up to quota without bringing Newbury below it Two simple ward splits results in a pretty decent plan. Whether Hampshire would be so simple remains to be seen - as has been noted Southampton is the key there
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 22, 2021 17:43:27 GMT
I suspect working from the basis that only one Southampton ward goes in a non-Southampton seat would give you a pretty good idea of whether that gives you sufficient leeway to draw the rest of the county effectively. In Fareham, splitting Sarisbury ward along the M27 also seems like it would be likely to make sense and might ease the numbers somewhat.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 22, 2021 19:42:35 GMT
I suspect working from the basis that only one Southampton ward goes in a non-Southampton seat would give you a pretty good idea of whether that gives you sufficient leeway to draw the rest of the county effectively. In Fareham, splitting Sarisbury ward along the M27 also seems like it would be likely to make sense and might ease the numbers somewhat. For the latter, yes, Sarisbury north of the motorway isn't Sarisbury at all. It's the southern part of Whiteley and Swanwick. If you split the ward like that you would split Lower Swanwick & Swanwick itself. However, Sarisbury is the ward that's going to be hived off from Fareham so that's going to split the Park Gate/Sarisbury/Locks Heath community anyway if you take it as a whole so splitting the Swanwicks is small beer in comparison. I think it's very likely you'll end up with Sarisbury going in with a Hedge End based seat when it all comes out in the wash, but it'll be very much an adjunct of that seat (being on the other side of the Hamble and no real community ties for the vast majority of the ward). The only solution that would actually make sense for community ties (with Sarisbury itself being a lost cause) would be to put it in with Whiteley & Shedfield and whatever constituency that ends up in, therefore uniting Whiteley. Of all the wards that has to go though, it personally tickles me that it's the long time Fareham council leaders one! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 22, 2021 20:36:38 GMT
As an alternative Fareham ward split, what about splitting Titchfield ward so that Titchfield proper goes in with Gosport whilst the rest of the ward stays with Fareham? I don't know what the community ties would be, but it looks like the numbers ought to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 22, 2021 21:10:47 GMT
As an alternative Fareham ward split, what about splitting Titchfield ward so that Titchfield proper goes in with Gosport whilst the rest of the ward stays with Fareham? I don't know what the community ties would be, but it looks like the numbers ought to work. Lived in Titchfield (village) for parts of most years through the 1960s and early 70s. My dad worked in Gosport. However the village looked then toward Fareham which was within a stout walk. Travel to Gosport was harder (and, sadly, an even less enticing prospect as a destination than Fareham - and that's pretty negative!). I'd hope that communications have improved over the last 40-50 years! |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 23, 2021 0:52:07 GMT
As an alternative Fareham ward split, what about splitting Titchfield ward so that Titchfield proper goes in with Gosport whilst the rest of the ward stays with Fareham? I don't know what the community ties would be, but it looks like the numbers ought to work. Lived in Titchfield (village) for parts of most years through the 1960s and early 70s. My dad worked in Gosport. However the village looked then toward Fareham which was within a stout walk. Travel to Gosport was harder (and, sadly, an even less enticing prospect as a destination than Fareham - and that's pretty negative!). I'd hope that communications have improved over the last 40-50 years! It's now effectively part of the more or less contiguous urban area that links Fareham proper to the 'western wards' part of the borough. If you take out Titchfield proper you split the constituency effectively in two and would have to remedy by taking Wickham & Southwick to effectively link it together again. Splitting Sarisbury is far preferable as it's on the edge of the constituency rather than its heart and has that natural split with the motorway. I see absolutely no way the comission would wear a split though... |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 23, 2021 14:22:37 GMT
If (and it remains a big 'if' for me even though I have a strong bias in favour of respecting county boundaries) we are going to try and squeeze 9 whole seats into Berkshire then we do have to get down to the nitty-gritty which means that in order to have something approximating sensible seats which respect natural communities we are going to need to split a couple of wards. The case has been well made recently on the thread about boundary-drawing policy issues I have taken mattb 's 9 seat plan for Berkshire and made a couple of amendments to draw the seats as he would have wanted them to be had the numbers allowed, that is to say to reorient the Newbury seat and the new 'Mid Berkshire' seat so that the boundary runs from North to South instead of East to West and to avoid placing part of New Windsor in the Maidenhead seat. The four seats in the centre of the county are excellent with the Reading seats following similar lines to the seats of these names which existed between 1974 and 1983 and both Bracknell and Wokingham seats being wholly contained within their respective boroughs. The only problem is a that the Maidenhead and Tilehurst seats are very slightly undersized. In looking in detail at the configuration of wards in Windsor it became apparent that part of the Clewer & Dedworth West ward is actually technically outside of New Windsor and within the parish of Bray. There are two polling districts here (HA and JA) each with an electorate of between 450 and 500. Together they would constitute too many voters (as would leave Windsor short) but either one would bring Maidenhead into quota without leaving Windsor short (I suggest HA, the northern one of the two fits best) It also occurred to me that large rural wards such as those in West Berkshire are often comprised of a number of small parishes which themselves correspond with polling districts and so it is the case here. If we were to take the Hermitage parish/PD from Chieveley and Cold Ash and add it to the Tilehurst seat we would bring it up to quota without bringing Newbury below it Two simple ward splits results in a pretty decent plan. Whether Hampshire would be so simple remains to be seen - as has been noted Southampton is the key there The really tough nut to crack here isn't Clewer/Dedworth; it's the boundary between Windsor and Slough, which seems to be a disaster area however you do it, and regardless of whether Berks is getting nine whole seats or eight-and-a-bit.
I'm loth to get too deeply into Bucks until we see the numbers and boundaries, but how about this?
We know the fomer S Bucks district comprises 7 whole Bucks EDs with an electorate of 53056. Add Slough UA and you get 140902. This can be divided into two seats by adding the wards of Colnbrook, Langley St Mary's and Wexham Lea to S Bucks - admittedly it's a rotten division of Langley but surely better than putting Upton and Cippenham Meadows into Windsor.
Now, leaving aside the western three UAs of Berks since we have a number of workable solutions assigning them five whole seats, that leaves us with Bracknell Forest and Windsor & Maidenhead with a combined electorate of 194060. To get these up to strength for three seats I'm looking at adding Bucks EDs nos. 38, 40 and 46. The Bucks map from the LGBCE (link below) is not the clearest or easiest to interpret that I've ever seen, but it seems to me these three ED's, taken together, exactly coincide with the two Gt Marlow wards plus Flackwell Heath, Bourne End and the Wooburns. This gets us up to 219528, which is good for three seats (I've already got a couple of workable ways of doing it, there are probably more).
With Chesham and Amersham coterminous with the former Chiltern district, with 9 whole Bucks EDs, and comfortably within range at 73015, this leaves the rest of Bucks plus MK with 435548 = 5.93. This should be good for 6 seats assuming the Bucks EDs don't prove too troublesome (which of course they well might).
I'd really welcome comments on this approach.
Here's the LGBCE's Bucks map:
|
|
