Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 14, 2021 23:29:38 GMT
Has it been noted at some point over the past 13 pages that Basingstoke and Deane is listed on the BCE website as having new ward boundaries pending?
Some of the tighter plans for that part of Hampshire could be thrown out of kilter by those. And it could have knock-on effects for Berkshire for those of us who have drawn up cross-county seats.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,521
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 14, 2021 23:35:30 GMT
Has it been noted at some point over the past 13 pages that Basingstoke and Deane is listed on the BCE website as having new ward boundaries pending? Some of the tighter plans for that part of Hampshire could be thrown out of kilter by those. And it could have knock-on effects for Berkshire for those of us who have drawn up cross-county seats. On Boundary Assistant they are the new boundaries.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 14, 2021 23:42:01 GMT
Has it been noted at some point over the past 13 pages that Basingstoke and Deane is listed on the BCE website as having new ward boundaries pending? Some of the tighter plans for that part of Hampshire could be thrown out of kilter by those. And it could have knock-on effects for Berkshire for those of us who have drawn up cross-county seats. On Boundary Assistant they are the new boundaries. Ah, that's a relief! Thanks, must have missed that or forgotten about it. It would explain why it hasn't been discussed much here. And it means my 'leftovers' constituency remains in quota!
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 18, 2021 10:41:27 GMT
I've been tinkering further with Sussex. Most of it is as I have posted before, but I'm pleased with this version of the centre of the county. It avoids the previous plan's awkward placement of Uckfield in the Lewes seat, which also has the benefit that the infuriatingly elongated Danehill ward ceases to be a problem. Lewes now has to be bolstered with two wards from Mid Sussex, which is better than Uckfield but still not ideal (alternatively, it can take Hurstpierpoint and Bolney in exchange for High Weald, but I prefer the Mid Sussex seat in the configuration shown). Uckfield now looks much more at home in the Hailsham seat, while Crowborough is nicely nested in E Grinstead instead of being right at the edge.
Also, have I previously posted a plan for Kent? What I have here is similar to schemes posted upthread. It may even be identical to someone's scheme, in which case I apologize to that person (but great minds, &c).
Names and numbers can be supplied on request.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 20, 2021 12:17:57 GMT
This offers, a think, a better take on Sussex. Kent is as per the previous post.
Sussex Chichester - 70530. Bognor Regis - 76431. Arundel - 75289. This is not minimum change but I feel the departure is justified by the huge improvement in this and the following seat compared with the current map.
Worthing - 76497. The entire district less Goring.
Shoreham - 73139.
Horsham - 75934. Pulborough is out on a slight limb (although its links are not bad); if preferred the numbers allow it to be switched to the Chichester seat, but it would be an orphan ward. Crawley - 74446. Unchanged.
Mid Sussex - 71489. A substantial restructuring of the current seriously-oversized seat: it loses Burgess Hill and E Grinstead, leaving Haywards Heath as its only major town; it gains rural wards currently in the Horsham and Arundel seats. It is altogether more compact than the current convoluted arrangement. Hove - 73726. Unchanged.
Brighton Pavilion - 75850. Brighton Kemptown - 69737. I've taken the advice of Pete Whitehead about this and the previous seat, but I'd still like to point out that simply switching Regency ward into the Kemptown seat would shift only 7000 voters compared with more than thrice the number under this arrangement. Lewes - 71751. Gains Burgess Hill and Hassocks; loses Seaford (but keeps Newhaven).
East Grinstead - 75824. Essentially the northern part of Wealden, taking only E Grinstead itself from Mid Sussex. Hailsham - 76992. Roughly, the southern part of Wealden, plus Heathfield and Seaham. The area of Hailsham town and the congeries of small communities immediately south of it, currently split very awkwardly between four seats, is completely united within this seat. Eastbourne - 73322. Now coterminous with its district.
Bexhill and Battle - 76234. Compared with the current seat, it gains territory on its eastern flank (to get Hastings within range) and also in the north (Frant); it loses Heathfield and Horam. Hastings and Rye - 75581. As everyone has it.
Kent
Sevenoaks - 74274. Loses two wards in the south and gains two in the north. Dartford - 72531. The current seat less two wards to get it within range.
Gravesend - 72866. Coterminous with its district and unchanged except that (as someone put it upthread) it is now correctly spelt. Rochester and Strood - 75521. Loses River ward. Gillingham - 73951. Unchanged. The inclusion of 'Rainham' in the name is unnecessary and risks confusion with the identically-named town across the Thames estuary in metropolitan Essex. Chatham and Aylesford - 70728. The inclusion of River ward means that it now actually includes Chatham town centre and the waterfront. Farther south, it loses Snodland (not Larkfield, as in some plans, because this would leave Snodland unconnected with the rest of the seat).
Tonbridge and Malling - 76489. The current seat less its Sevenoaks element and plus Snodland.
Tunbridge Wells - 75757. As others have had it; it loses its eastern parts and gains the southern part of Sevenoaks district. South Kent - 75788. The new seat. Some plans have it extending to Dungeness, but I prefer the inland version. Maidstone - 73931. Loses its long southward tail and is now very much focused on the town itself. Sittingbourne and Sheppey - 76818. The current seat less two wards to get within range. Faversham - 75832. Loses territory in the south but gains Whitstable from Canterbury and a couple of wards from Sittingbourne.
Ashford - 69794. Loses much (not all) of its rural element. Canterbury - 71027. Loses Whitstable and gains North Downs wards from Folkestone and Ashford. North Thanet - 71829. Unchanged. South Thanet - 71986. Unchanged.
Dover - 75855. Unchanged.
Folkestone and Hythe - 70023. Loses territory to Ashford and Canterbury to get within range; still extends south to the Sussex border.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 20, 2021 12:29:19 GMT
Brighton Pavilion - 75850. Brighton Kemptown - 69737. I've taken the advice of Pete Whitehead about this and the previous seat, but I'd still like to point out that simply switching Regency ward into the Kemptown seat would be a lot simpler and would shift only 7000 voters compared with nearly 23000 under this arrangement. My 'final'* plan for Sussex has actually ended up leaving Pavilion unchanged and adding Kingston ward to Kemptown as this was necessary to make the numbers work with my Lewes seat (due to adding all of Willingdon etc). I think having more than one seat crossing the county boundary here is best avoided unless really necessary (and it isn't here) although the trio of seats you've created there (Lewes, East Grinstead and Hailsham) are quite neat in their own right. My first attempt at Sussex had a Hailsham seat which incorporated the built up area around Eastbourne and there's alot to be said for it * of course they are never quite 'final', until submitted anyway..
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 20, 2021 13:05:38 GMT
I hadn't realized you'd changed your Brighton plan and my initial reaction is that as a way of bolstering Kemptown, Kingston would be a lot more controversial than Regency.
I take the point about crossing the inner-Sussex border twice. However, although I am definitely not of the 'traditional county' school of thought, I have to admit that the E/W Sussex boundary does not carry quite the same weight as most other county boundaries so I'm hoping the double crossing may be forgiven. Still, if we want to have only one seat crossing the county boundary, and still keep Kingston in Lewes, how about this? Caveat 1: This is not my preferred plan. Caveat 2: I've taken the liberty of showing a minimum change arrangement in central Brighton (i.e. just switching Regency) but this is not fundamental to the rest of this plan - everything still works if you keep Regency in Pavilion and exchange Queen's Park and Hanover instead.
Edited to add: Or, compared with the map above, Lewes could gain Plumpton and Ditchling in exchange for Newick, giving a much more compact E Grinstead seat. This results in a plan to which I'll give serious consideration. It has the drawback that it leaves a seat for which the ridiculous name 'Wealden' would be unavoidable, but I suppose that's not really a legitimate consideration.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,521
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 20, 2021 14:22:04 GMT
I hadn't realized you'd changed your Brighton plan and my initial reaction is that as a way of bolstering Kemptown, Kingston would be a lot more controversial than Regency.
I take the point about crossing the inner-Sussex border twice. However, although I am definitely not of the 'traditional county' school of thought, I have to admit that the E/W Sussex boundary does not carry quite the same weight as most other county boundaries so I'm hoping the double crossing may be forgiven. Still, if we want to have only one seat crossing the county boundary, and still keep Kingston in Lewes, how about this? Caveat 1: This is not my preferred plan. Caveat 2: I've taken the liberty of showing a minimum change arrangement in central Brighton (i.e. just switching Regency) but this is not fundamental to the rest of this plan - everything still works if you keep Regency in Pavilion and exchange Queen's Park and Hanover instead. Edited to add: Or, compared with the map above, Lewes could gain Plumpton and Ditchling in exchange for Newick, giving a much more compact E Grinstead seat. This results in a plan to which I'll give serious consideration. It has the drawback that it leaves a seat for which the ridiculous name 'Wealden' would be unavoidable, but I suppose that's not really a legitimate consideration.
That's much better arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 20, 2021 15:30:38 GMT
Thanks. The more I tinker, the more options I find. I'm currently looking at this scheme, which also has only one cross-border seat (Lewes) and I think is my current favourite. A small drawback, although surely not a dealbreaker, is that this version of Horsham can no longer accommodate Pulborough, which has to be unloaded as an orphan ward into Chichester.
(I hope I'm not trying everyone's patience with too many maps.)
Names and numbers (only of seats that differ from my main post earlier today):
Chichester - 76401. As orphan wards go, Pulborough isn't a bad fit. Horsham - 75365. Not exactly a bad seat but the boundary cuts much closer to the town than in the previous version.
East Grinstead - 74793. Or 'North Sussex'? Lewes - 76161. Loses its coastline and expands west.
Hailsham - 74005. The southern part of Wealden district (except the Pevensey area) plus Seaford and Newhaven. Crowborough - 71160. The name is novel but better than 'Wealden'. I'm very happy with this one. Bexhill and Battle - 70869. Brighton Kemptown - 75825. This is the minimum-change version, just adding Regency. This seat and the following one are independent of the changes in the rest of the map, so if preferred Regency can stay in Pavilion with Hanover and Queen's Park switching seats. Brighton Pavilion - 69762. The aforesaid Georgian eccentricity is still (just) located within the seat.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,521
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 20, 2021 15:38:18 GMT
Thanks. The more I tinker, the more options I find. I'm currently looking at this scheme, which also has only one cross-border seat (Lewes) and I think is my current favourite. A small drawback, although surely not a dealbreaker, is that this version of Horsham can no longer accommodate Pulborough, which has to be unloaded as an orphan ward into Chichester. (I hope I'm not trying everyone's patience with too many maps.)
Names and numbers (only of seats that differ from my main post earlier today): Chichester - 76401. As orphan wards go, Pulborough isn't a bad fit. Horsham - 75365. Not exactly a bad seat but the boundary cuts much closer to the town than in the previous version.
East Grinstead - 74793. Or 'North Sussex'? Lewes - 76161. Loses its coastline and expands west.
Hailsham - 74005. The southern part of Wealden district (except the Pevensey area) plus Seaford and Newhaven. Crowborough - 71160. The name is novel but better than 'Wealden'. I'm very happy with this one. Bexhill and Battle - 70869. Brighton Kemptown - 75825. This is the minimum-change version, just adding Regency. This seat and the following one are independent of the changes in the rest of the map, so if preferred Regency can stay in Pavilion with Hanover and Queen's Park switching seats. Brighton Pavilion - 69762. The aforesaid Georgian eccentricity is still (just) located within the seat.
With your dislike of Wealden, you could call it Sussex Weald (and in Kent, call that Tenterden seat Weald of Kent or somesuch).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 20, 2021 16:09:35 GMT
Well, I try (not always successfully) not to get too much hung up about names. It's the boundaries that really matter, after all, and in that regard I think this is a particularly good seat. I wouldn't despair if it ended up as 'Wealden', although checking pre-1974 maps I see it's a decent fit for the old Uckfield RD so that's another possible name.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 20, 2021 16:17:26 GMT
I think Crowborough is an excellent name
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Feb 20, 2021 17:26:23 GMT
East and West Sussex with one cross-county seat: Arundel & Littlehampton (75638) Bexhill & Battle (70869) Bognor Regis (77045) Brighton Pavilion (75850) Brighton Peacehaven (69737) Chichester (76180) Crawley (74446) East Grinstead & Uckfield (71554) Eastbourne (73322) Hailsham & Crowborough (70015) Hastings & Rye (75581) Haywards Heath (77004) Horsham (76981) Hove (73726) Lewes (71204) Shoreham (76785) Worthing (76835) ibb.co/MP3cyBw
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 20, 2021 18:40:44 GMT
This offers, a think, a better take on Sussex. Kent is as per the previous post.
Sussex Chichester - 70530. Bognor Regis - 76431. Arundel - 75289. This is not minimum change but I feel the departure is justified by the huge improvement in this and the following seat compared with the current map.
Worthing - 76497. The entire district less Goring.
Shoreham - 73139.
Horsham - 75934. Pulborough is out on a slight limb (although its links are not bad); if preferred the numbers allow it to be switched to the Chichester seat, but it would be an orphan ward. Crawley - 74446. Unchanged.
Mid Sussex - 71489. A substantial restructuring of the current seriously-oversized seat: it loses Burgess Hill and E Grinstead, leaving Haywards Heath as its only major town; it gains rural wards currently in the Horsham and Arundel seats. It is altogether more compact than the current convoluted arrangement. Hove - 73726. Unchanged.
Brighton Pavilion - 75850. Brighton Kemptown - 69737. I've taken the advice of Pete Whitehead about this and the previous seat, but I'd still like to point out that simply switching Regency ward into the Kemptown seat would shift only 7000 voters compared with more than thrice the number under this arrangement. Lewes - 71751. Gains Burgess Hill and Hassocks; loses Seaford (but keeps Newhaven).
East Grinstead - 75824. Essentially the northern part of Wealden, taking only E Grinstead itself from Mid Sussex. Hailsham - 76992. Roughly, the southern part of Wealden, plus Heathfield and Seaham. The area of Hailsham town and the congeries of small communities immediately south of it, currently split very awkwardly between four seats, is completely united within this seat. Eastbourne - 73322. Now coterminous with its district.
Bexhill and Battle - 76234. Compared with the current seat, it gains territory on its eastern flank (to get Hastings within range) and also in the north (Frant); it loses Heathfield and Horam. Hastings and Rye - 75581. As everyone has it.
Kent
Sevenoaks - 74274. Loses two wards in the south and gains two in the north. Dartford - 72531. The current seat less two wards to get it within range.
Gravesend - 72866. Coterminous with its district and unchanged except that (as someone put it upthread) it is now correctly spelt. Rochester and Strood - 75521. Loses River ward. Gillingham - 73951. Unchanged. The inclusion of 'Rainham' in the name is unnecessary and risks confusion with the identically-named town across the Thames estuary in metropolitan Essex. Chatham and Aylesford - 70728. The inclusion of River ward means that it now actually includes Chatham town centre and the waterfront. Farther south, it loses Snodland (not Larkfield, as in some plans, because this would leave Snodland unconnected with the rest of the seat).
Tonbridge and Malling - 76489. The current seat less its Sevenoaks element and plus Snodland.
Tunbridge Wells - 75757. As others have had it; it loses its eastern parts and gains the southern part of Sevenoaks district. South Kent - 75788. The new seat. Some plans have it extending to Dungeness, but I prefer the inland version. Maidstone - 73931. Loses its long southward tail and is now very much focused on the town itself. Sittingbourne and Sheppey - 76818. The current seat less two wards to get within range. Faversham - 75832. Loses territory in the south but gains Whitstable from Canterbury and a couple of wards from Sittingbourne.
Ashford - 69794. Loses much (not all) of its rural element. Canterbury - 71027. Loses Whitstable and gains North Downs wards from Folkestone and Ashford. North Thanet - 71829. Unchanged. South Thanet - 71986. Unchanged.
Dover - 75855. Unchanged.
Folkestone and Hythe - 70023. Loses territory to Ashford and Canterbury to get within range; still extends south to the Sussex border.
Separating Middleton from the Bognor Regis seat doesn't feel ideal. You can fix that by swapping the Witterings for Goodwood ward. It doesn't look pretty on a map, but in practice I think it works out better for the communities concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 21, 2021 23:07:17 GMT
Here's another variation on this theme (copying the basic form of islington 's plan with Lewes being the 'cross-county' seat)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by YL on Feb 22, 2021 8:19:15 GMT
Here's my take on a Lewes cross border seat: Hove (73,726) unchanged Brighton Pavilion (75,850) swaps Queens Park for Hanover & Elm Grove Brighton East (69,737) swaps the other way, no longer containing all of Kemp Town Hastings & Rye (75,581) has anyone proposed anything else? Bexhill & Battle (70,869) Wealden component cut down to just the two Pevensey wards Eastbourne (73,322) coterminous with the district Hailsham & Newhaven (76,325) most of the south of Wealden district, including Hailsham and the Polegate/Willingdon area, plus the east of Lewes district Crowborough (73,934) compared with current Wealden, loses Hailsham and gains Heathfield; would probably still be called Wealden in reality... Lewes & Burgess Hill (75,603) the rest of Lewes, Burgess Hill town, and the east end of the current Arundel & South Downs East Grinstead & Haywards Heath (73,003) the bulk of Mid Sussex district and entirely contained within it Crawley (74,446) unchanged Horsham (76,981) loses Mid Sussex component, gains Cowfold et al; entirely in Horsham district Worthing East & Shoreham (75,466) unchanged Worthing West (76,293) loses Rustington, gains Angmering Arundel & Littlehampton (75,951) gains Littlehampton and Rustington, loses Barnham and eastern end including entire Mid Sussex component Bognor Regis (72,278) loses Littlehampton, gains Selsey, Barnham, North Mundham & Tangmere Chichester (73,407) loses Selsey and North Mundham & Tangmere.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 22, 2021 9:43:51 GMT
Here's my take on a Lewes cross border seat: Hove (73,726) unchanged Brighton Pavilion (75,850) swaps Queens Park for Hanover & Elm Grove Brighton East (69,737) swaps the other way, no longer containing all of Kemp Town Hastings & Rye (75,581) has anyone proposed anything else? Bexhill & Battle (70,869) Wealden component cut down to just the two Pevensey wards Eastbourne (73,322) coterminous with the district Hailsham & Newhaven (76,325) most of the south of Wealden district, including Hailsham and the Polegate/Willingdon area, plus the east of Lewes district Crowborough (73,934) compared with current Wealden, loses Hailsham and gains Heathfield; would probably still be called Wealden in reality... Lewes & Burgess Hill (75,603) the rest of Lewes, Burgess Hill town, and the east end of the current Arundel & South Downs East Grinstead & Haywards Heath (73,003) the bulk of Mid Sussex district and entirely contained within it Crawley (74,446) unchanged Horsham (76,981) loses Mid Sussex component, gains Cowfold et al; entirely in Horsham district Worthing East & Shoreham (75,466) unchanged Worthing West (76,293) loses Rustington, gains Angmering Arundel & Littlehampton (75,951) gains Littlehampton and Rustington, loses Barnham and eastern end including entire Mid Sussex component Bognor Regis (72,278) loses Littlehampton, gains Selsey, Barnham, North Mundham & Tangmere Chichester (73,407) loses Selsey and North Mundham & Tangmere. This is more or less the same plan I posted on here (which was the first Sussex plan posted on this thread by anybody) Hastings & Rye 74307 Bexhill & Battle 72143 Eastbourne 73322 Crowborough 73934 Hailsham 71231 Brighton East 70673 Brighton Central 74914 Hove 73726 Lewes 75971 East Grinstead 73003 Crawley 74446 Worthing East & Shoreham 75466 Worthing West 76293 Arundel & Littlehampton 75238 Bognor Regis 75377 Chichester 75747 Horsham 76981 I think excluding Ouse Valley & Ringmer from a Lewes seat is a bad idea
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 22, 2021 16:59:44 GMT
I'm not entirely convinced by this one but it might appeal to the BCE because it's very much based on minimum change. This including keeping the current split of Worthing on the grounds that if it's good enough for Sale ... .
My basic approach here was to trim existing seats to get them within range and load all the excess electors into the Mid Sussex seat until it got big enough to be chopped in two. The result is a plan with only one seat crossing the inner-Sussex county boundary and for that matter, the traditional boundary between E & W Sussex is also crossed by only one seat (unless you count Crawley, which I notice I've omitted to shade in).
There are a few options within the basic plan. For instance, although it wouldn't be minimum change Wealden would be more compact if it swapped Horam and Frant with Bexhill; in which case it might also exchange Buxted and Withyham with E Grinstead. Also, the numbers permit Cowfold to be placed in Horsham instead of Mid Sussex if preferred. If you're serious about minimum change, which means accepting a divided Worthing and a sprawling Arundel even though both can be avoided, then this is not bad (and apologies if, as I suspect may well be the case, someone has posted something similar upthread). A couple of further thoughts if I may: - What to do with Worthing is a key decision. But if you decide you want to do away with the present split, and leave out only a single ward, then I feel that Goring is by far the best choice because of its distinct identity, its good communications along the coast, and its history as a separate town and parish. Its near-7000 voters, freed up up the west side of Worthing, also greatly ease the creation of a neat and compact Arundel seat.
- Notwithstanding which, I pay tribute to the achievement of emidsanorak in fitting six legal seats into the five western LAs with a collective entitlement of 6.26: precision engineering at its finest.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by YL on Feb 22, 2021 17:52:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 22, 2021 19:08:44 GMT
I'm sure you're right. I'll try to stop after this one.
This is similar to the previous map inasmuch as it was constructed by loading surplus electors into Mid Sussex until it was big enough to be divided vertically in two (reflecting the fact that once you get away from the coast, lines of communication in Sussex tend to run north-south rather than east-west). But it has less regard for the existing map in W Sussex and is better for it, in my view.
Pulborough forms something of a salient in the Horsham seat but the communications are good. The numbers allow it to go into Chichester for a shorter common boundary, but it orphans the ward.
An alternative variation is to rotate the Witterings, Fittleworth and Middleton-on-Sea. This gets Middleton into the Bognor Regis seat, which is good, but Fittleworth, apart from being an orphan, spoils the neatness of the Arundel seat; so, on balance, I don't favour this.
In the scheme as mapped Goring is the only orphan ward in the whole county.
|
|