2023 Review - South East

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 23, 2021 14:22:37 GMT islington said:

Jan 22, 2021 15:13:49 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

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:

s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/11057/bucks_f_sh1_overview_web_so.pdf

With the Berks/Hants cross county seat the Windsor/Slough crossing becomes less messy too. The best arrangement is to take two of the Langley wards. This does unfortunately involve splitting Langley but not as egregiously as the way suggested above (which seems to have three separate Slough wards in Beaconsfield, none of which border one another). I don't see the point of anything suggested above when Buckinghamshire should work perfectly well for 8 seats (possibly requiring a ward split, but that isn't ruled out on your scheme anyway). You are trying to avoid an 'unnecessary' crossing between Berkshire and Hampshire by creating an even more unnecessary one between Berkshire and Buckinghamshire and while that may make some sense in the Slough/South Bucks area (historically all Bucks) it hardly does in relation to a Maidenhead and Marlow seat

[matureleft]

I'm prepared for the bullets, but, seeing the struggle over Hampshire, would pairing Hampshire with the two Sussexes work? They have some spare voters over the quota and there are certainly parts of West Sussex around Emsworth and Petersfield/Liphook that look toward Hampshire.

(Ducks!)

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 23, 2021 15:58:07 GMT matureleft said:

I'm prepared for the bullets, but, seeing the struggle over Hampshire, would pairing Hampshire with the two Sussexes work? They have some spare voters over the quota and there are certainly parts of West Sussex around Emsworth and Petersfield/Liphook that look toward Hampshire.

(Ducks!)

I don't think that will help and Sussex works fine as it is. In a previous review I did suggest moving Emsworth into the Chichester constituency as at that time it helped solve a problem in that area and as you say that area links perfectly well with Westbourne and Southbourne. I have been looking at moving the Liphook area into SW Surrey as that also links well but it didn't improve the situation and I'm happy that Surrey can stand alone (or, in my view, be slightly improved by bringing Edenbridge across from Kent)

[Khunanup]

Jan 23, 2021 15:58:07 GMT matureleft said:

I'm prepared for the bullets, but, seeing the struggle over Hampshire, would pairing Hampshire with the two Sussexes work? They have some spare voters over the quota and there are certainly parts of West Sussex around Emsworth and Petersfield/Liphook that look toward Hampshire.

(Ducks!)

The Sussexes don't need to pair at all to get reasonable seats and Hampshire can pair with either Berks or Surrey to help both themselves and those other counties, who really could do with pairing to get reasonable seats (obviously as Pete Whitehead has shown, Berks & Surrey can pair elsewhere as well if they need to).

Particularly though, the area of Hants that borders West Sussex needs little help at all with that area not really being of any use for the issues there are elsewhere in the county, so giving Southbourne/Westbourne to Havant or Midhurst etc to a Petersfield based seat isn't going to be particularly useful.

[Pete Whitehead]

I've made a few tweaks to my Hampshire/Berkshire plan and I'm very happy with it. The existing seats are largely either left alone, or in some cases somewhat improved.




1 New Forest West 71009 Yes Unchanged seat
2 New Forest East 73823 Yes Unchanged seat
3 Southampton Test 69960 Yes Unchanged seat
4 Southampton Itchen 72150 Yes Unchanged seat
5 Eastleigh 73866 Yes Loses Bishopstoke and Fair Oak. Gains Sarisbury
6 Romsey & Southampton North 74934 Yes Gains Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury. Loses a couple of rural wards making it a far more cohesive urban and suburban seat compactly situated to the North of the Southampton conurbation
7 Winchester 74885 Yes Loses Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury. Gains Bishopstoke and Fair Oak
8 Andover 72183 Yes (relative to NW Hants) gains a couple of rural wards to the South, loses a couple of rural wards to the East. Now more clearly centred on Andover
9 Meon Valley 75340 Yes Unchanged seat*
10 Fareham 72797 Yes Loses Sarisbury (not ideal but pretty much inevitable)
11 Gosport 73763 Yes Unchanged seat
12 Portsmouth South 74253 Yes Unchanged seat
13 Portsmouth North 71844 Yes Unchanged seat
14 Havant 72766 Yes Unchanged seat
15 Hampshire East 76943 Yes Unchanged seat
16 Hampshire North East 73633 Yes loses and gains a few areas around Basingstoke
17 Aldershot 70039 Yes Unchanged seat*
18 Basingstoke 70700 Yes Loses Chineham, gains Oakley & the Candovers
19 Silchester 75781 Yes New seat
20 Newbury 72016 Yes Loses a number of rural wards in the East to bring it in quota
21 Reading West 72495 Yes Loses Theale
22 Reading East 76655 Yes Unchanged seat
23 Wokingham 76571 Yes Loses the Newbury district wards together with Shinfield and Swallowfield. Gains the Wokingham borough wards which are currently in Bracknell Forest plus Hurst from Maidenhead. Now entirely contained within its eponymous district
24 Bracknell 74347 Yes Loses the Wokingham borough wards, gains Ascot and Warfield Harvest Ride. Now entirely contained within its eponymous district and includes most of the Bracknell built up area
25 Maidenhead 75291 Yes Loses Hurst
26 Windsor 75160 Yes Loses Ascot and Warfield Harvest Ride. Gains Foxborough and Langley St Mary's from Slough
27 Slough 75054 Yes Loses Foxborough and Langley St Mary's

* realigns with new ward boundaries


One change I would consider here if it will help with Buckinghamshire. You can move Hurst back into Maidenhead and Bray from there to Windsor. This would leave Windsor needing to take only the Foxborough ward from Slough (the old, larger, Foxborough ward was included in this constituency between 1997 and 2010). You will then need to remove another ward from Slough and add it to Beaconsfield. Britwell and Wexham Lea both have precedent and were previously separate parishes (although the Wexham Lea ward includes areas which were not in that parish). In terms of links on the ground however, Haymill & Lynch Hill would probably be best as it links very well with the South Bucks area of Burnham but there's a decent case for Wexham Lea too. This may or may not help with Buckinghamshire once the numbers are revealed, but the option is there if it does

[Pete Whitehead]

Further to that, you can make the additional change to those mentioned in my last paragraph of adding the Bracknell Ascot ward to Windsor and this does enable Windsor to withdraw from Slough completely. If you then link Slough with the (former) South Bucks district you can get two seats but the only way to get them in quota is in the way that islington described. The problem here is that both seats would have an electorate of only around 70,500. The average seat size in Buckinghamshire + Slough + Milton Keynes would be 74,993 as against 73,386 in Buckinghamshire + Milton Keynes. If you instead added the Colnbrook, Foxborugh and Langley St Mary's wards to South Bucks and then additionally put in The Wooburns, Bourne End & Hensor, this would make seats of 75,054 (Slough) and 74,398 (Beaconsfield) which would take some pressure off the rest of Bucks (but still most plans so far seen envisage a MK North/Newport Pagnell with an electorate at the lower end of the range).
So it's difficult to see how this would help in Buckinghamshire much and only has the limited advantage of removing any vestiges of Slough from the Windsor seat (which has included part of Slough borough since it's existed). Just possibly this kind of arrangement could help if you were then to envisage hiving off some of those awkward rural wards in Northern Bucks (Such as Bernwood, Grendon Underwood into a cross county seat with Oxfordshire (where there is the opposite pressure of working towards an average electorate which is towards the lower end of the quota (71,390).)
Indeed if you do treat this whole area as a sub-region (Oxon, Bucks, MK, Slough) you get an average electorate for 16 seats of 73,190 which compares to a regional quota of 73,290.

However Oxfordshire can be made to work on its own and I've yet to see a sensible proposal for a cross county Bucks/Oxon seat so for now I am working on the basis of considering each of those counties on their own.

[Pete Whitehead]

I've played around with Oxon a fair bit. There are plenty of ways to get the numbers to work
This one seems a bit random but I quite like it (sorry if it's already been done - this thread is getting long)

[islington]

Jan 23, 2021 18:49:15 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Further to that, you can make the additional change to those mentioned in my last paragraph of adding the Bracknell Ascot ward to Windsor and this does enable Windsor to withdraw from Slough completely. If you then link Slough with the (former) South Bucks district you can get two seats but the only way to get them in quota is in the way that islington described. The problem here is that both seats would have an electorate of only around 70,500. The average seat size in Buckinghamshire + Slough + Milton Keynes would be 74,993 as against 73,386 in Buckinghamshire + Milton Keynes. If you instead added the Colnbrook, Foxborugh and Langley St Mary's wards to South Bucks and then additionally put in The Wooburns, Bourne End & Hensor, this would make seats of 75,054 (Slough) and 74,398 (Beaconsfield) which would take some pressure off the rest of Bucks (but still most plans so far seen envisage a MK North/Newport Pagnell with an electorate at the lower end of the range).
So it's difficult to see how this would help in Buckinghamshire much and only has the limited advantage of removing any vestiges of Slough from the Windsor seat (which has included part of Slough borough since it's existed). Just possibly this kind of arrangement could help if you were then to envisage hiving off some of those awkward rural wards in Northern Bucks (Such as Bernwood, Grendon Underwood into a cross county seat with Oxfordshire (where there is the opposite pressure of working towards an average electorate which is towards the lower end of the quota (71,390).)
Indeed if you do treat this whole area as a sub-region (Oxon, Bucks, MK, Slough) you get an average electorate for 16 seats of 73,190 which compares to a regional quota of 73,290.

However Oxfordshire can be made to work on its own and I've yet to see a sensible proposal for a cross county Bucks/Oxon seat so for now I am working on the basis of considering each of those counties on their own.

Thanks Pete. All good points.

I'm still attracted to the idea of treating Slough with the former S Bucks but if you do it in isolation, then you are left with the rest of Bucks + MK = 6.28, which obviously is not going to work. Also, if you want to avoid crossing the Berks/Hants border, you are probably going to assign 5 whole seats to the three western Berks UA,  meaning you then have to work out what to do with the remaining two UAs with their entitlement of 2.64. So the idea of putting Marlow, &c, (0.35 of a seat) in with Maidenhead (two towns with a reasonable amount in common) was to kill two birds with one stone and balance the numbers in both Bucks and eastern Berks.

I'm trying not to get too much involved in Bucks until we have the numbers. There are 49 ED, so they are going to be over 8000 on average; it could get tricky.    

[Merseymike]

Jan 23, 2021 21:14:44 GMT islington said:

Jan 23, 2021 18:49:15 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Further to that, you can make the additional change to those mentioned in my last paragraph of adding the Bracknell Ascot ward to Windsor and this does enable Windsor to withdraw from Slough completely. If you then link Slough with the (former) South Bucks district you can get two seats but the only way to get them in quota is in the way that islington described. The problem here is that both seats would have an electorate of only around 70,500. The average seat size in Buckinghamshire + Slough + Milton Keynes would be 74,993 as against 73,386 in Buckinghamshire + Milton Keynes. If you instead added the Colnbrook, Foxborugh and Langley St Mary's wards to South Bucks and then additionally put in The Wooburns, Bourne End & Hensor, this would make seats of 75,054 (Slough) and 74,398 (Beaconsfield) which would take some pressure off the rest of Bucks (but still most plans so far seen envisage a MK North/Newport Pagnell with an electorate at the lower end of the range).
So it's difficult to see how this would help in Buckinghamshire much and only has the limited advantage of removing any vestiges of Slough from the Windsor seat (which has included part of Slough borough since it's existed). Just possibly this kind of arrangement could help if you were then to envisage hiving off some of those awkward rural wards in Northern Bucks (Such as Bernwood, Grendon Underwood into a cross county seat with Oxfordshire (where there is the opposite pressure of working towards an average electorate which is towards the lower end of the quota (71,390).)
Indeed if you do treat this whole area as a sub-region (Oxon, Bucks, MK, Slough) you get an average electorate for 16 seats of 73,190 which compares to a regional quota of 73,290.

However Oxfordshire can be made to work on its own and I've yet to see a sensible proposal for a cross county Bucks/Oxon seat so for now I am working on the basis of considering each of those counties on their own.

Thanks Pete. All good points.

I'm still attracted to the idea of treating Slough with the former S Bucks but if you do it in isolation, then you are left with the rest of Bucks + MK = 6.28, which obviously is not going to work. Also, if you want to avoid crossing the Berks/Hants border, you are probably going to assign 5 whole seats to the three western Berks UA,  meaning you then have to work out what to do with the remaining two UAs with their entitlement of 2.64. So the idea of putting Marlow, &c, (0.35 of a seat) in with Maidenhead (two towns with a reasonable amount in common) was to kill two birds with one stone and balance the numbers in both Bucks and eastern Berks.

I'm trying not to get too much involved in Bucks until we have the numbers. There are 49 ED, so they are going to be over 8000 on average; it could get tricky.    

Certainly Marlow and Maidenhead would be a good fit. Even though they are in different counties people are much more likely to visit the towns than is the case with Beaconsfield. The local branch railway line runs from Marlow to Maidenhead.

[bjornhattan]

Jan 23, 2021 20:59:54 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I've played around with Oxon a fair bit. There are plenty of ways to get the numbers to work
This one seems a bit random but I quite like it (sorry if it's already been done - this thread is getting long)

Putting the Abingdon Road (ie Hinksey Park ward) in with an Abingdon based seat? It's an interesting idea, and not a bad one at all. The bridges mean that it feels a little cut off from the rest of the city, and there are very strong transport links south, especially in terms of public transport. The other seats all look pretty decent to me - though you're constrained in what you can do by the shape of your Abingdon. As always, I'm mildly unhappy about Oxford city centre being split, but you have to do it to keep Oxford East in quota and it is the key to your Hinksey Park solution.

The partisan implications of that map would be intriguing - I think Bicester and Oxford West would lean Lib Dem (but less heavily than Oxford West and Abingdon). Abingdon should be Conservative but is just about the least Conservative seat you can draw in southern Oxfordshire; it is pretty much all urban or suburban rather than rural. It shouldn't come into consideration when deciding which plan is best but it's still interesting to speculate.

[Pete Whitehead]

The best way to avoid splitting the city centre seems to be to detach wards around Headington - probably a non-starter but it is interesting to see how many different combinations of wards in Oxfordshire work on the number, and without being totally ridiculous. This one crosses to Thames further up river but avoids any crossing of the Thames in my Abingdon seat



Certainly shows there's no need to entertain any cross county seats involving Oxfordshire

[greenhert]

Jan 23, 2021 21:54:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The best way to avoid splitting the city centre seems to be to detach wards around Headington - probably a non-starter but it is interesting to see how many different combinations of wards in Oxfordshire work on the number, and without being totally ridiculous. This one crosses to Thames further up river but avoids any crossing of the Thames in my Abingdon seat



Certainly shows there's no need to entertain any cross county seats involving Oxfordshire

It looks neater than my own plan for Oxfordshire but it would go against the BCE's rule of "minimum change". My plan, for all its faults, at least did that (by for example keeping Oxford West & Abingdon as a seat, albeit shrunken, and keeping Wantage and Didcot together).

[Pete Whitehead]

Minimum change would probably look something like this





Obviously when a county is going up from 6 to 7 seats there's going to be some significant change, but here the Oxford seats, Henley and Wantage are not changed very much. I don't care for the crossing of the boundary between Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire, but in a way it's no worse than crossing in the Wallingford area (even though that is the same district either side of the river, it still seems to me like the kind of boundary that shouldn't be crossed

The possibilities really do seem to be endless in this county. ..

[islington]

Jan 23, 2021 21:40:12 GMT Merseymike said:

Jan 23, 2021 21:14:44 GMT islington said:

Thanks Pete. All good points.

I'm still attracted to the idea of treating Slough with the former S Bucks but if you do it in isolation, then you are left with the rest of Bucks + MK = 6.28, which obviously is not going to work. Also, if you want to avoid crossing the Berks/Hants border, you are probably going to assign 5 whole seats to the three western Berks UA,  meaning you then have to work out what to do with the remaining two UAs with their entitlement of 2.64. So the idea of putting Marlow, &c, (0.35 of a seat) in with Maidenhead (two towns with a reasonable amount in common) was to kill two birds with one stone and balance the numbers in both Bucks and eastern Berks.

I'm trying not to get too much involved in Bucks until we have the numbers. There are 49 ED, so they are going to be over 8000 on average; it could get tricky.    

Certainly Marlow and Maidenhead would be a good fit. Even though they are in different counties people are much more likely to visit the towns than is the case with Beaconsfield. The local branch railway line runs from Marlow to Maidenhead.

Thanks Mike. Marlow-Maidenhead, despite being cross-county, is definitely a more logical pairing than some that have been suggested.

But I'm leaving this aside until we see the data for Bucks, which may blow all current ideas out of the water..

[gerrardwinstanley]

Jan 23, 2021 20:59:54 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I've played around with Oxon a fair bit. There are plenty of ways to get the numbers to work
This one seems a bit random but I quite like it (sorry if it's already been done - this thread is getting long)

If you didn’t want to split Oxford city centre, would it be possible to replace Carfax with Marston?

P.S. I think this is perhaps the best Oxfordshire I’ve seen yet.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 24, 2021 15:27:41 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

Jan 23, 2021 20:59:54 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I've played around with Oxon a fair bit. There are plenty of ways to get the numbers to work
This one seems a bit random but I quite like it (sorry if it's already been done - this thread is getting long)

If you didn’t want to split Oxford city centre, would it be possible to replace Carfax with Marston?

P.S. I think this is perhaps the best Oxfordshire I’ve seen yet.

It works on the numbers but while linked by the B4495 it's clearly more linked to the other parts of Marston, Headington etc. I'm not so fussed about the city centre. I'd rather not split it, but I think it's preferable often to divide central city areas between constituencies than obviously coherent residential neighbourhoods, as you would be doing if you detached Marston from its neighbours to the East.

[bjornhattan]

Jan 24, 2021 15:56:06 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 24, 2021 15:27:41 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

If you didn’t want to split Oxford city centre, would it be possible to replace Carfax with Marston?

P.S. I think this is perhaps the best Oxfordshire I’ve seen yet.

It works on the numbers but while linked by the B4495 it's clearly more linked to the other parts of Marston, Headington etc. I'm not so fussed about the city centre. I'd rather not split it, but I think it's preferable often to divide central city areas between constituencies than obviously coherent residential neighbourhoods, as you would be doing if you detached Marston from its neighbours to the East.

I agree that spitting Marston is worse than splitting the centre, but I'd argue that Oxford city centre is somewhat different to other central area. Its population is fairly transient, but it's got far more of a natural community than most city centres.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 24, 2021 14:11:16 GMT islington said:

Jan 23, 2021 21:40:12 GMT Merseymike said:

Certainly Marlow and Maidenhead would be a good fit. Even though they are in different counties people are much more likely to visit the towns than is the case with Beaconsfield. The local branch railway line runs from Marlow to Maidenhead.

Thanks Mike. Marlow-Maidenhead, despite being cross-county, is definitely a more logical pairing than some that have been suggested.

But I'm leaving this aside until we see the data for Bucks, which may blow all current ideas out of the water..

Just a reminder that the quota for Buckinghamshire (including Milton Keynes) is 8.00. The size of the new wards and the awkward shape of some of them is going to cause some problems but the solution to that will be a couple of ward splits here and there (including possibly in Milton Keynes) - not tearing up the whole map.

Other than the new Berks-Hants seat I don't what suggested pairings you have a problem with, since most of the remaining seats in my plan are the existing seats with little change. You might note that my suggestion for Maidenhead was alternatively removing one ward of roughly 2,000 electors or leaving it completely unchanged

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Berks and Bucks. Not sure how original this is, as the search box does not seem to be working (so apologies to those I have ripped off), but moving one Buckinghamshire ward into Slough puts Beaconsfield back within range and then allows all of Langley to go into Windsor:

1 Newbury 72016 Yes
2 Mid Berkshire 69963 Yes
3 Wokingham 69964 Yes
4 Reading West 70426 Yes
5 Reading East 70862 Yes
6 Bracknell 70247 Yes
7 Maidenhead 73463 Yes
8 Windsor 69783 Yes
9 Slough 72240 Yes
10 Beaconsfield 74697 Yes
11 Wycombe 72371 Yes
12 Chesham and Amersham 73015 Yes
13 Risborough 72237 Yes
14 Aylesbury 72184 Yes
15 Buckingham 71428 Yes
16 Milton Keynes South 76064 Yes
17 Milton Keynes North 71264 Yes

[evergreenadam]

Jan 24, 2021 16:07:36 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Berks and Bucks. Not sure how original this is, as the search box does not seem to be working (so apologies to those I have ripped off), but moving one Buckinghamshire ward into Slough puts Beaconsfield back within range and then allows all of Langley to go into Windsor:

1 Newbury 72016 Yes
2 Mid Berkshire 69963 Yes
3 Wokingham 69964 Yes
4 Reading West 70426 Yes
5 Reading East 70862 Yes
6 Bracknell 70247 Yes
7 Maidenhead 73463 Yes
8 Windsor 69783 Yes
9 Slough 72240 Yes
10 Beaconsfield 74697 Yes
11 Wycombe 72371 Yes
12 Chesham and Amersham 73015 Yes
13 Risborough 72237 Yes
14 Aylesbury 72184 Yes
15 Buckingham 71428 Yes
16 Milton Keynes South 76064 Yes
17 Milton Keynes North 71264 Yes

In which case it should be Windsor and Langley. Perfect pitchfork bait!