|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 24, 2021 21:05:02 GMT
I've come up with another 18 seat plan for Hampshire without split wards. I don't like it but it's a considerable improvement on my earlier effort.  I'm very happy with my joint Berkshire/Hampshire plan. This is just a way to amuse myself like playing Sudoko or doing the Times crossword |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jan 25, 2021 12:26:32 GMT
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. As it happens, 9/49 times the electorate of the Bucks unitary is very close to a single quota. So if the divisions have fairly even electorates (which is quite a big if, but it's close enough that there's some leeway) then we might be looking at five groups of nine making legal constituencies within Bucks, and four left over to join MK (or three left over to join MK and one to help out Slough, which would need smaller MK seats). So it might work OK, but likewise I'm not going to try too hard to look at the details yet. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434 
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jan 25, 2021 13:34:02 GMT
Yes, indeed. If you had two fairly small seats wholly in MK (I'm looking at MKN 70624, MKS 70098, but this is purely off the top of my head), then on the western flank of MK you leave five wards (totalling 47551) to go in a seat with parts of Bucks UA. If you count the MK contingent as roughly equivalent to 6 Bucks EDs, then I must say I find it very tempting to leave Chesham and Amersham alone (9 EDs), treat the former S Bucks district (7 EDs) with Slough as I suggested above, and put Marlow, Bourne End, &c, (3 EDs) in with Maidenhead to ease boundary-drawing difficulties in Berks. This leaves 30 Bucks EDs to be accounted for, plus the equivalent of 6 from MK, which should in theory give us four seats comprising 9 EDs apiece.
But once we get the numbers, I suspect it won't be quite so easy as that. For one thing, I see that the 17 EDs in the former Aylesbury Vale district average 8445 apiece, which multiplied by 9 makes 76005, worryingly close to the upper limit.
Can it all be made to work? We shall see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 25, 2021 13:54:11 GMT
Off topic: would a Banbury seat excluding Bicester have been won by Labour in 1997 and 2001?
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jan 25, 2021 16:36:27 GMT
Off topic: would a Banbury seat excluding Bicester have been won by Labour in 1997 and 2001? The Bicester wards were all won by Labour in 1995 and 1996, before being lost in 1999. These were consistently more Labour than the district as a whole (for example, in 1995 Labour won just over half of the vote in the district but about two thirds in Bicester). It is therefore likely that they would have been very close in 1997 - Labour might have won very narrowly but removing Bicester would not change the numerical majority very much. Of course, a seat excluding Bicester would also exclude rural wards to thee south of Bicester like Ambrosden, Chesterton, and Launton. The 1997 incarnation of Banbury also included Otmoor and Kirtlington which would not be included. These five wards will have been heavily Conservative, though trying to estimate how heavily is difficult (since they were generally Con vs LD marginals locally - Catherine Bearder seems to have won Chesterton, for example). To pluck a number out of thin air, let's say they were 50:25:25 for the Conservatives, Labour, and others - that's similar to the figure in the Buckingham constituency which some of those wards border, which is similar in character to the rural area around Bicester (and almost entirely rural).* The electorate of the village wards was about 8,700, so assuming a 75% turnout, they would have added 1,600 votes to the Conservative majority. That still leaves Labour 3,000 votes behind, or thereabouts. But one big caveat. Most Banbury seats in this thread add Chipping Norton - this is one of Labour's strongest areas in Witney. The Conservatives only contested Chipping Norton twice in the 1990s, and both times they were defeated heavily by Labour (54% to 28% in 1994, 61% to 39% in 1998). Kingham, Rollright, and Enstone would help the Conservatives, but not by as much as you'd expect, with all three registering sizeable local Labour votes. It is quite difficult to tell, but it is entirely possible that Labour would have won that area in 1997, which would reduce the majority of such a Banbury constituency even more. So in summary, probably not, but the majority would have been considerably less. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2021 16:47:36 GMT
I have some notional ward results for the area from that election so I could come up with something. Pretty much all the proposals here (those which don't involve crossing the Thames between West Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse) involve adding the West Oxfordshire wards of Chipping Norton, Kingham, Rollright & Enstone and the Bartons to all the Cherwell wards to the North of Bicester. My guess is likewise it will be fairly close but still Conservative - of course it will be a more rural seat overall..
Worth remembering there were county council elections in 1997 on the same day as the general election and the Labour margins in Banbury were nothing like as overwhelming as in the two or three years previously
I've rounded a bit because the ward boundaries in use then don't fit exactly, but the Banbury seat as described above would have voted thus in 1997
Con 19161 41.6%
Lab 16800 36.5%
LD 7450 16.2%
Oth 2600 5.7%
I've chosen to edit this post rather than add another because I don't want to clog up this already heavily populated thread. On the whole it's going to be better to put these kind of notionals elsewhere and even then probably only when there are some kind of concrete proposals to go on. Generally those who are drawing up proposals are clearly drawing up plans with regard to natural communities and the other statutory criteria and not with regard to their partisan effect. Obviously pretty much any boundary change has some partisan effect, but it would be best (especially for those of us likely to submit proposals) if our musings about what the boundaries could, should or might be, would be separated from musings about what the partisan effects might be
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2021 19:21:48 GMT
My take on Sussex:  Hasting 75881 Bexhill & Battle 73698 Eastbourne 73322 Wealden 75331 Mid Sussex 75015 - slightly more of the district is actually in with Burgess Hill, but I didn't want to include all 3 towns in the name and this at least marks it as the cross-county seat Lewes 76479 Brighton Kemptown 70363 - minimum change option. You could also swap Hanover & Elm Grove for Moulsecoomb & Bevendean if you wanted a neater boundary Brighton Pavilion 76854 - unchanged Hove 73726 - unchanged Worthing East & Shoreham 72942 - I don't like the orphan ward, but I needed it to keep Worthing West out of the Littlehampton urban area Worthing West 76151 Littlehampton 72363 Bognor Regis 74808 - ugly boundary need to stay contiguous by road Chichester 76316 In general, the further you get away from the coast, the less happy I am with this. I've spent a fair bit of time today coming up with a revised Sussex plan and thought I should check if anyone had already done it. It was in fact identical to this with only a few exceptions. All of Brighton & Hove and East Sussex and the cross county seat are the same (though I went for reviving the East Grinstead name) plus Horsham and obviously Crawley. The only differences were I had Bramber etc in the Burgess Hill seat and I had the Witterings in Bognor, Goodwood in Chichester, Barnham in Littlehampton and East Preston in Worthing West (with Worthing East & Shoreham being unchanged). I've relented on the latter and put East Preston in with Littlehampton but I'm fairly relaxed about the road connection between Bognor and Selsey. The trick to avoiding the orphan ward with East Worthing is to re-orientate the two seats, putting Angmering & Findon in with Adur along with a couple of Northern Worthing wards (following the A27 pretty well) and returning a couple of Worthing wards to a unified Worthing (the other seat we can just call Shoreham).  If you're bothered about the road link, you can fix this by orphaning another Chichester ward which does give the Arundel & Littlehampton seat a slightly better shape  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 25, 2021 21:14:32 GMT
My take on Sussex: Hasting 75881 Bexhill & Battle 73698 Eastbourne 73322 Wealden 75331 Mid Sussex 75015 - slightly more of the district is actually in with Burgess Hill, but I didn't want to include all 3 towns in the name and this at least marks it as the cross-county seat Lewes 76479 Brighton Kemptown 70363 - minimum change option. You could also swap Hanover & Elm Grove for Moulsecoomb & Bevendean if you wanted a neater boundary Brighton Pavilion 76854 - unchanged Hove 73726 - unchanged Worthing East & Shoreham 72942 - I don't like the orphan ward, but I needed it to keep Worthing West out of the Littlehampton urban area Worthing West 76151 Littlehampton 72363 Bognor Regis 74808 - ugly boundary need to stay contiguous by road Chichester 76316 In general, the further you get away from the coast, the less happy I am with this. I've spent a fair bit of time today coming up with a revised Sussex plan and thought I should check if anyone had already done it. It was in fact identical to this with only a few exceptions. All of Brighton & Hove and East Sussex and the cross county seat are the same (though I went for reviving the East Grinstead name) plus Horsham and obviously Crawley. The only differences were I had Bramber etc in the Burgess Hill seat and I had the Witterings in Bognor, Goodwood in Chichester, Barnham in Littlehampton and East Preston in Worthing West (with Worthing East & Shoreham being unchanged). I've relented on the latter and put East Preston in with Littlehampton but I'm fairly relaxed about the road connection between Bognor and Selsey. The trick to avoiding the orphan ward with East Worthing is to re-orientate the two seats, putting Angmering & Findon in with Adur along with a couple of Northern Worthing wards (following the A27 pretty well) and returning a couple of Worthing wards to a unified Worthing (the other seat we can just call Shoreham). If you're bothered about the road link, you can fix this by orphaning another Chichester ward which does give the Arundel & Littlehampton seat a slightly better shape That's definitely an improvement round Worthing. Then again, I've gone off this map because it's a bit of a mess round Polegate. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 30, 2021 18:46:04 GMT
My Buckinghamshire plan:
1. Milton Keynes North East (70,538). Succeeds Milton Keynes North. Loses Bradwell, Campbell Park & Old Wroughton and Central Milton Keynes, gains Monkston.
2. Milton Keynes South West (75,605). Succeeds Milton Keynes South. Loses all Bletchley wards, Danesborough & Walton and Monkston, and gains Bradwell, Campbell Park & Old Wroughton and Central Milton Keynes wards.
3. Bletchley & Buckingham (74,957). New seat. Contains the Milton Keynes wards of Bletchley (all) and Danesborough & Walton, and the Buckinghamshire wards around Buckingham (electorates of Buckinghamshire UA wards TBC).
4. Aylesbury (75,127). Now contains no wards that were not in the former district of Aylesbury Vale.
5. Marlow (73,130). Succeeds Buckingham despite the name.
6. Wycombe (70,605). Loses western rural areas and what was Tylers Green & Loudwater ward, gains area around Greater Hughenden (exact electorate of new Buckinghamshire UA wards TBC).
7. Beaconsfield (74,110). Loses Marlow, gains what was Tylers Green & Loudwater ward.
8. Chesham & Amersham (73,015). Unchanged.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 2, 2021 8:05:38 GMT
Here are some initial thoughts from me, before I read what everyone else has done, and try and transcribe the result onto publishable maps. My general approach is (a) to establish constraints, and get a general outline of what is required. (b) come up with a reasonably plausible scheme as quickly as possible starting with the existing layout (c) tinker with it to make it better. Obviously if either my general thoughts or my initial scheme are off beam, I'm not going to get the best result.
Buckinghamshire + Milton Keynes I am not anticipating any problems once we have new ward figures. Marlow will go back into Wycombe, Aylesbury will be cut back, MK West plus Buckingham will free a large chunk of the existing Buckingham seat, and the bits left over make a new West Buckinghamshire seat from Marsh Gibbon down to Stokenchurch.
Oxfordshire also gains a seat. Banbury and Bicester have to be split, so extending Banbury south into West Oxfordshire is inescapable. The 2 Oxford & Abingdon seats no longer need Kidlington, so this goes with Bicester. There are 2 choices here revolving clockwise or anti-clockwise. I like the idea of extending Bicester into West Oxfordshire too, picking up the Charlbury area. This in itself is clunky, but you find Witney extended south takes the surplus from Wantage, leaving a "Henley" seat wholly in South Oxfordshire. Obviously you can go the other way round taking Wheatley into Bicester, and Didcot into Henley but I don't think this works as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 2, 2021 8:13:32 GMT
Here are some initial thoughts from me, before I read what everyone else has done, and try and transcribe the result onto publishable maps. My general approach is (a) to establish constraints, and get a general outline of what is required. (b) come up with a reasonably plausible scheme as quickly as possible (c) tinker with it to make it better. Obviously if either my general thoughts or my initial scheme are off beam, I'm not going to get the best result. Buckinghamshire + Milton Keynes I am not anticipating any problems once we have new ward figures. Marlow will go back into Wycombe, Aylesbury will be cut back, MK West plus Buckingham will free a large chunk of the existing Buckingham seat, and the bits left over make a new West Buckinghamshire seat from Marsh Gibbon down to Stokenchurch. Oxfordshire also gains a seat. Banbury and Bicester have to be split, so extending Banbury south into West Oxfordshire is inescapable. The 2 Oxford & Abingdon seats no longer need Kidlington, so this goes with Bicester. There are 2 choices here revolving clockwise or anti-clockwise. I like the idea of extnding Bicester into West Oxfordshire too, picking up the Charlbury area. This in itself is clunky, but you find Witney extended south takes the surplus from Wantage, leaving a "Henley" seat wholly in South Oxfordshire. Obviously you can go the other way round taking Wheatley into Bicester, and Didcot into Wantage but I don't think this works as well. I think what you describe in Oxfordshire more or less corresponds to the most recent of my (many) plans posted for that county. Despite the tightness of the numbers, the generally small ward sizes in the county mean there are multiple possibilities. I think this one is my favourite on balance 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. .. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 2, 2021 8:18:30 GMT
Kent turned out to be surprisingly easy after all the wrestling at the zombie review. You can even have a nice compact Maidstone seat including the whole town. The key is to link Edenbridge with Tunbridge Wells. The new seat takes the east end of the latter borough, extending across the south of Ashford District to Romney marsh (Romney & the Weald might be a better name than Tenterden). Obviously there are nuances but I doubt anyone has anything very different.
Sussex is a little trickier. I have linked East & West with a rather clunky Haywards Heath & Uckfield seat, but can't really see any alternative. Otherwise the pattern in East is much the same as now, with wards lopped off to bring seats down to size where necessary, and the surplus from Wealden hived off into West Sussex. In the latter you have too many voters along the south coast for the 3 existing seats, so a chunk has to be taken out somewhere. I have shifted Bognor eastwards and moved Aldwick & Pagham into Chichester. Burgess Hill is the successor to Mid Sussex picking up the Steyning area in exchange for Haywards Heath. Horsham loses stuff on the west. And the successor to Arundel & South Downs just links the western wards of Horsham District with the northern wards of Chichester District (Sussex NW, or Midhurst & Pulborough, or maybe "Goodwood").
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 2, 2021 9:53:58 GMT
Now the problem. Berkshire is too small for 9 seats and too large for 8. It has to be linked with either Hampshire or Surrey.
I started by trying to fit 12 small seats into Surrey. This ought to be possible, as the required average is just over 71,500, but there are large wards in some parts of the county. I had two tries, both of which made a huge mess of the existing map, and even so I ran out of voters. I'm sure some of you have come up with a solution which I will view with interest. So I solved the problem by adding the Ascot/Sunningdale area, which has close links with Surrey Heath. The extra 13,000 voters made all the difference. Next you have to decide what to do with Reigate. Obviously the 2 northern wards top up Epsom as now. Annoyingly the rest of the borough excluding Horley is a few hundred short. So I linked Reigate with Horley, and took the 3 spare wards into a seat with Leatherhead, which also picks up the surplus from Elmbridge (Runnymede & Weybridge plus Esher & Walton are now too big). Woking of course stands alone. This leaves you enough voters to create 3 reasonably logical seats of (a) Farnham & Ash (b) Guildford (c) Dorking & Godalming.
Back to Hampshire & Berkshire. You still need to cross the boundary. South Hampshire is no problem at all. New Forest/Southampton/Portsmouth is unchanged. Fareham drops a ward into Eastleigh, which drops two wards into Winchester. The rest of Winchester links with Waterlooville for a neater Meon valley seat, liberating Horndean back to East Hampshire. Basingstoke sits as a compact urban seat. So what do you with the rest - Andover, rural parts of Basingstoke District, Alton, Hart, and Rushmoor? One possibility which I confess I haven't explored yet, but looks promising, is to link Andover with Hungerford. At the moment I have a NW Hampshire that bears resemblance to the existing seat (starting from the existing pattern which is my normal way of proceeding). Just 1 ward (Blackwater) needs to be added to Rushmoor, thus avoiding splitting Yateley or Fleet. I have linked Alton with Fleet/Crookham and the 2 SE wards of Basingstoke (Oakley & Basing). This leaves the NE wards of Basingstoke plus Yateley to link with Burghfield and Finchampstead in Berkshire. This looks fine on a map, but you have 1 seat with wards from 3 districts and 1 with seats from 4 districts which is plainly not ideal.
The rest of Berkshire now splits into 8 seats as now. Slough has to be cut down and the extra wards go into Windsor to replace Ascot/Sunningdale. Bracknell annoyingly still needs Wokingham Without to bring it up to size. In the west Newbury has to be cut back, and "Reading West" is now more West Berkshire than it is Reading. However Reading East now fits entirely within the borough. Wokingham and Maidenhead share the urban sprawl of Woodley and Earley as now, but include all of it.
I'm reasonably satisfied with this, except for the miserable cross-county seat. As suggested above if I cross the border between Andover and Hungerford, this means 2 urban Reading seats can be retained, although NE Hampshire still looks like a mess. I'm going to see what the rest of you have done before working further on this, and will start on the difficult northern regions.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 2, 2021 10:33:21 GMT
I've come up with another 18 seat plan for Hampshire without split wards. I don't like it but it's a considerable improvement on my earlier effort. I'm very happy with my joint Berkshire/Hampshire plan. This is just a way to amuse myself like playing Sudoko or doing the Times crossword Pete, it's always good to see an 18-seat Hants but I'm not sure this version is better than your previous plan - Fleet Central is in a different seat from the other two Fleet wards, you've taken a huge bite out of Basingstoke and split Whitehill down the middle. But in response to the post by John Chanin above, it is possible to get 18 workable seats in Hampshire but it involves doing considerable violence to the current map. That leaves you to squeeze 9 seats into Berks, which is possible but it makes an awful mess of the Windsor/Slough boundary (the rest of Berks surprisingly isn't too bad).
Alternatively, you can cross the Hants/Berks boundary (but where?) and this allows far less change to current seats in south and central Hants and a less horrible (but still pretty bad) treatment of Slough.
Essentially there is no right answer to this conundrum. But there is considerable choice about exactly which form of imperfect solution you find least unpalatable.
I've left Surrey out of consideration because it can accommodate 12 reasonable seats and upthread there are a few ways of doing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 2, 2021 10:56:15 GMT
Well you know my view on the subject so need to reiterate. An 18 seat Hampshire is an amusing way to while away 20 minutes or so when I have nothing better to do, but it isn't going to form part of any serious scheme of constituency boundaries. I'm perfectly content with my cross county arrangement with Berkshire
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 2, 2021 11:13:51 GMT
Well, that's fine, Pete, and it's a question on which opinions may legitimately differ. But my view is that I've yet to see a Hants/Berks seat that can be considered satisfactory (and this comment applies to my own suggestions for such a seat, not just those put forward by yourself and other posters).
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 2, 2021 11:45:34 GMT
Somebody remarked that if you wanted a decent 18 seat Hampshire plan, it would help to split a Southampton ward. I've tried to map this out. It helps a little, but not enough to stop it being clearly inferior to a Hampshire/Berkshire pairing:  Southampton Test (approx 76k) - gains Bassett, will need to lose part of Bevois. Southampton Itchen (approx 76k) - gains about 4000 electors from Bevois - Northam looks like the first place to start but probably isn't enough on its own Hedge End (76592) - successor to Eastleigh. Loses the eponymous town, gains Swaythling and Sarisbury. Swaythling is ugly, but it makes the numbers work New Forest W (75590) - gains Boldre & Sway New Forest E (74178) - gains Blackwater from Test Valley Winchester (74194) - loses Chandler's Ford, gains bits of Test Valley. Not wild about the way it curves round Andover Eastleigh & Romsey (73373) - cohesive but unlovely Meon Valley (74921) - loses Southwick & Wickham, gains Colden Common & Twyford Fareham (72797) - loses Sarisbury East Hampshire (76943) - unchanged Gosport (73763) - unchanged Portsmouth North (76634) - Southwick & Wickham is a bad fit, but every attempt to remove it caused problems elsewhere Portsmouth South (74253) - unchanged Havant (72766) - unchanged Aldershot (76765) - gains Yateley East NW Hampshire (76155) - loses Andover's hinterland Basingstoke (76948) - the usual trick with Bramley NE Hampshire (74589) - as per usual |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 2, 2021 12:14:54 GMT
Somebody remarked that if you wanted a decent 18 seat Hampshire plan, it would help to split a Southampton ward. I've tried to map this out. It helps a little, but not enough to stop it being clearly inferior to a Hampshire/Berkshire pairing That was me, and my own experiments lead me to agree that it helps but not by enough. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 2, 2021 13:17:29 GMT
Thanks guys. I've worked through the thread and as I suspected there is a perfectly reasonable way to do Surrey for 12 seats, which means I can return Sunningdale to Berkshire. This makes a better pattern in east Berkshire with Bracknell wholly contained in its district, which I had previously worked out. I am convinced that trying to do Berkshire and Hampshire separately is a waste of time, and no-one has convinced me otherwise, nor come up with a much better cross-county seat and answers for NE Hampshire. We're stuck with this cross-county seat that links together random small towns and bits of countryside. Others do have better arrangements around Reading though. On Kent I don't think anyone's results are any better than mine - it's really about what you do with individual wards here and there. On Sussex there are 2 plans which are clearly an improvement on mine in the cross-county area. Others have the same Oxfordshire solution as me.
For Buckinghamshire there are 49 county wards to do 5 and a half seats. 5 x 9 plus 4 to link with MK West looks like it should be straightforward but we will see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 6, 2021 22:20:42 GMT
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 I've been plotting my whole South East plan on the map to save (minus Bucks) and I noticed that there was no need to move Theale into the Silchester seat - I think that had been necessary on a previous draft to make the numbers work. Therefore Reading West can also be left unchanged which means that on this plan 13 seats are entirely unchanged (barring ward realignments in a couple of places) - that is half the total of 26 current seats in this sub-region |
|
