|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 22, 2021 19:18:34 GMT
Just for a bit of fun, here's West Sussex with no crossing of the boundary with East Sussex (totally pointless as East Sussex would then have to be paired with Kent or Surrey)
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,488
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 23, 2021 0:05:41 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.Â
- 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.
I can't fault anything in that to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 23, 2021 10:56:32 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.
Slightly tweaked my plan upthread, think this actually moves about 20,000 fewer electors than your plan above. I really wanted to keep Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill together (and include Hassocks), it seems to me if you're taking one of the three towns out of mid-Sussex it really should be East Grinstead if possible.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 23, 2021 14:14:39 GMT
Well, mattb , in my plan I'm having my cake and eating it. With a bit of sleight of hand I'm keeping all three of the major towns in Mid Sussex: E Grinstead and Haywards Heath on the basis that although the revised seat is called E Grinstead, it draws over 54000 of its voters from the current Mid Sussex and is therefore best seen as the successor seat; and Burgess Hill on the basis that it will still be in a seat called Mid Sussex, even though in reality it's a new creation that does not draw a majority of its voters from any existing seat (in round numbers - 31000 from Mid Sussex, 22000 from Arundel, 17000 from Horsham).
(It's all done with mirrors.)
More seriously, though, I'd prefer to avoid your version of E Grinstead because once you get away from the coast, east-west alignments don't work at all well in Sussex. I'm iffy about your Arundel for the same reason, although to be fair, the current Arundel is even worse.
So I'm sticking to my most recent plan (not the one you responded to), subject to a few tweaks to put Uckfield in Wealden and Forest Row, Hartfield and Withyham into E Grinstead.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 24, 2021 21:15:07 GMT
Here's a take on Buckinghamshire which follows the idea, suggested in the past (e.g. this post by Pete Whitehead), of removing Marlow from Beaconsfield and combining it with areas NW of High Wycombe: Beaconsfield (70,133): Beaconsfield, Chalfont St Giles, Chalfont St Peter, Cliveden, Denham, Farnham Common & Burnham Beeches, Gerrards Cross, Iver, Stoke Poges & Wexham. (Roughly the existing seat without the Marlow area, plus Chalfont St Giles and Chalfont St Peter.) Chesham & Amersham (72,897): Amersham & Chesham Bois, Chesham, Chess Valley, Chiltern Ridges, Great Missenden, Little Chalfont & Amersham Common, Penn Wood & Old Amersham, Ridgeway East, Wendover et al. (A shift northwards, losing Chalfonts St Giles and St Peter and gaining areas Wendover and Ridgeway East.) Wycombe (71,724): Abbey, Booker et al, Downley, Hazlemere, Ryemead & Micklefield, Terriers & Amersham Hill, The Wooburns et al, Totteridge & Bowerdean, Tylers Green & Loudwater. (Loses Chiltern Villages and West Wycombe; gains the Wooburns etc..) Marlow & Princes Risborough (75,725): Bernwood, Chiltern Villages, Flackwell Heath et al, Grendon Underwood, Marlow, Ridgeway West, Stone & Waddesdon, The Risboroughs, West Wycombe. (New seat.) Aylesbury (75,636): The six Aylesbury wards; Aston Clinton & Bierton, Ivinghoe, Wing. (Quite heavily redrawn, shifting north into areas in the current Buckingham.) Buckingham & Milton Keynes West (74,137): Buckingham East, Buckingham West, Great Bricklow, Winslow; Bradwell, Stantonbury, Stony Stratford, Wolverton. Milton Keynes South (70,562): Bletchley (3 wards), Loughton & Shenley, Shenley Brook End, Tattenhoe, Woughton & Fishermead Milton Keynes North East (76,273): the rest (IIRC the MK bit is borrowed from ricmk). Not perfect, but it works. The new seat isn't the most coherent, and while I don't mind removing West Wycombe village from the Wycombe seat it looks to me as if the ward includes part of High Wycombe town. I found the new wards quite awkward to work with: lots of boundaries in places you don't want to put a constituency boundary.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 24, 2021 21:20:47 GMT
Here's a take on Buckinghamshire which follows the idea, suggested in the past (e.g. this post by Pete Whitehead), of removing Marlow from Beaconsfield and combining it with areas NW of High Wycombe: Beaconsfield (70,133): Beaconsfield, Chalfont St Giles, Chalfont St Peter, Cliveden, Denham, Farnham Common & Burnham Beeches, Gerrards Cross, Iver, Stoke Poges & Wexham. (Roughly the existing seat without the Marlow area, plus Chalfont St Giles and Chalfont St Peter.) Chesham & Amersham (72,897): Amersham & Chesham Bois, Chesham, Chess Valley, Chiltern Ridges, Great Missenden, Little Chalfont & Amersham Common, Penn Wood & Old Amersham, Ridgeway East, Wendover et al. (A shift northwards, losing Chalfonts St Giles and St Peter and gaining areas Wendover and Ridgeway East.) Wycombe (71,724): Abbey, Booker et al, Downley, Hazlemere, Ryemead & Micklefield, Terriers & Amersham Hill, The Wooburns et al, Totteridge & Bowerdean, Tylers Green & Loudwater. (Loses Chiltern Villages and West Wycombe; gains the Wooburns etc..) Marlow & Princes Risborough (75,725): Bernwood, Chiltern Villages, Flackwell Heath et al, Grendon Underwood, Marlow, Ridgeway West, Stone & Waddesdon, The Risboroughs, West Wycombe. (New seat.) Aylesbury (75,636): The six Aylesbury wards; Aston Clinton & Bierton, Ivinghoe, Wing. (Quite heavily redrawn, shifting north into areas in the current Buckingham.) Buckingham & Milton Keynes West (74,137): Buckingham East, Buckingham West, Great Bricklow, Winslow; Bradwell, Stantonbury, Stony Stratford, Wolverton. Milton Keynes South (70,562): Bletchley (3 wards), Loughton & Shenley, Shenley Brook End, Tattenhoe, Woughton & Fishermead Milton Keynes North East (76,273): the rest (IIRC the MK bit is borrowed from ricmk). Not perfect, but it works. The new seat isn't the most coherent, and while I don't mind removing West Wycombe village from the Wycombe seat it looks to me as if the ward includes part of High Wycombe town. I found the new wards quite awkward to work with: lots of boundaries in places you don't want to put a constituency boundary. West Wycombe ward does include part of the town. I don't have a map in front of me but couldn't that stay in Wycombe and the Wooburns go to Marlow?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 24, 2021 21:23:49 GMT
Here's a take on Buckinghamshire which follows the idea, suggested in the past (e.g. this post by Pete Whitehead), of removing Marlow from Beaconsfield and combining it with areas NW of High Wycombe: Beaconsfield (70,133): Beaconsfield, Chalfont St Giles, Chalfont St Peter, Cliveden, Denham, Farnham Common & Burnham Beeches, Gerrards Cross, Iver, Stoke Poges & Wexham. (Roughly the existing seat without the Marlow area, plus Chalfont St Giles and Chalfont St Peter.) Chesham & Amersham (72,897): Amersham & Chesham Bois, Chesham, Chess Valley, Chiltern Ridges, Great Missenden, Little Chalfont & Amersham Common, Penn Wood & Old Amersham, Ridgeway East, Wendover et al. (A shift northwards, losing Chalfonts St Giles and St Peter and gaining areas Wendover and Ridgeway East.) Wycombe (71,724): Abbey, Booker et al, Downley, Hazlemere, Ryemead & Micklefield, Terriers & Amersham Hill, The Wooburns et al, Totteridge & Bowerdean, Tylers Green & Loudwater. (Loses Chiltern Villages and West Wycombe; gains the Wooburns etc..) Marlow & Princes Risborough (75,725): Bernwood, Chiltern Villages, Flackwell Heath et al, Grendon Underwood, Marlow, Ridgeway West, Stone & Waddesdon, The Risboroughs, West Wycombe. (New seat.) Aylesbury (75,636): The six Aylesbury wards; Aston Clinton & Bierton, Ivinghoe, Wing. (Quite heavily redrawn, shifting north into areas in the current Buckingham.) Buckingham & Milton Keynes West (74,137): Buckingham East, Buckingham West, Great Bricklow, Winslow; Bradwell, Stantonbury, Stony Stratford, Wolverton. Milton Keynes South (70,562): Bletchley (3 wards), Loughton & Shenley, Shenley Brook End, Tattenhoe, Woughton & Fishermead Milton Keynes North East (76,273): the rest (IIRC the MK bit is borrowed from ricmk). Not perfect, but it works. The new seat isn't the most coherent, and while I don't mind removing West Wycombe village from the Wycombe seat it looks to me as if the ward includes part of High Wycombe town. I found the new wards quite awkward to work with: lots of boundaries in places you don't want to put a constituency boundary. I did give some consideration to the possibilities on the new ward boundaries here as well (the second post incorporates the concept of adding the Chalfonts to Beaconsfield). I'll be interested to have a play with the new figures now they're available but may wait until kevinlarkin has updated his site
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 24, 2021 21:42:52 GMT
On the other hand I may not.. A scheme which keeps Chesham & Amersham intact (73,015) Beaconsfield is the 7 divisions of the former South Bucks district plus The Wooburns, Bourne End and Hedsor and Tylers Green and Loudwater (69,892) - this was what I posted previously but knew it was touch and go whether the numbers worked. They do just Wycombe - Abbey, Booker, Cressex and Castlefield, Chiltern Villages, Downley, Flackwell Heath, Little Marlow and Marlow South East, Marlow, Ryemead and Micklefield, Terriers and Amersham Hill, Totteridge and Bowerdean (73,190) Aylesbury as per YL's scheme Princes Risborough - West Wycombe, Hazlemere, Ridgeway East, Ridgeway West, The Risboroughs, Wendover, Halton and Stoke Mandeville, Stone and Waddesdon, Bernwood, Grendon Underwood (74,382) Buckingham & Bletchley - Buckingham East, Buckingham West, Great Brickhill, Winslow and from Milton Keynes Bletchley East, Bletchley Park, Bletchley West, Tattenhoe (73,644)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 24, 2021 21:54:44 GMT
West Wycombe ward does include part of the town. I don't have a map in front of me but couldn't that stay in Wycombe and the Wooburns go to Marlow? No: puts the Marlow & Princes Risborough seat over quota by 2 electors.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 24, 2021 22:00:33 GMT
West Wycombe ward does include part of the town. I don't have a map in front of me but couldn't that stay in Wycombe and the Wooburns go to Marlow? No: puts the Marlow & Princes Risborough seat over quota by 2 electors. Make them move!
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 24, 2021 22:19:36 GMT
West Wycombe ward does include part of the town. I don't have a map in front of me but couldn't that stay in Wycombe and the Wooburns go to Marlow? No: puts the Marlow & Princes Risborough seat over quota by 2 electors. I think that can be overlooked! Makes much more sense than the alternatives
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 24, 2021 22:51:57 GMT
No: puts the Marlow & Princes Risborough seat over quota by 2 electors. I think that can be overlooked! Nope
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 24, 2021 23:02:31 GMT
I think that can be overlooked! Nope Then stupidity is winning over common sense
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 25, 2021 8:12:49 GMT
Another thought I had regarding Buckinghamshire is that removing Marlow from Beaconsfield gives a problem as to what to do with it, so how about trying keeping it there. The trouble is that you then have to remove a ward somewhere else; none of the options are ideal, but the least bad one is probably to remove Beaconsfield itself, in spite of the bit of the fringe of Beaconsfield which is in Gerrards Cross ward.
South Buckinghamshire (70,312): the former South Bucks wards except Beaconsfield, the two Marlow wards, and The Wooburns et al.
Wycombe (70,385): as I had it before, but with West Wycombe instead of The Wooburns et al. I think this is the best option for Wycombe itself.
Chesham & Amersham (73,246): the former Chiltern wards except Great Missenden, plus Beaconsfield.
Princes Risborough (76,536): as the new seat in my previous version, but without the Marlow wards or West Wycombe and with Great Missenden, Ridgeway East and Wendover. Still contains Chiltern Villages.
Aylesbury and the Buckingham and MK seats as I had them before.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 25, 2021 13:16:12 GMT
Regarding Oxfordshire, I seriously hope we do not end up with a plan that sees the city of Oxford being split between three seats, because that is what could happen (e.g. Blackbird Leys and Northfield Brook wards being moved into Henley a la Central Suffolk & Ipswich North to keep Henley mainly intact).
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 28, 2021 11:58:21 GMT
My plan for Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes: ibb.co/8cmmnmb1. Chesham & Amersham (73,852). Shifted northwards but retains both the eponymous towns. 2. South Buckinghamshire (70,133). Succeeds Beaconsfield; shifted upwards to include Chalfont St Giles and Chalfont St Peter. Can also be called "Beaconsfield & The Chalfonts". 3. Wycombe (70,385). Loses the Chiltern villages and now basically coterminous with the town of High Wycombe. 4. West Buckinghamshire (75,594). New seat. Awkward but sadly unavoidable. 5. Aylesbury (76,151). More compact than current Aylesbury seat. 6. Milton Keynes North East (76,273). Succeeds Milton Keynes North. Loses Bradwell, Stantonbury and Wolverton wards, gains Danesborough & Walton and Monkston wards. 7. Milton Keynes South (70,562). Loses Danesborough & Walton, Monkston and Stony Stratford wards. 8. Buckingham (74,137). Can also be called "Buckingham & Wolverton". Contains northernmost parts of Buckinghamshire UA including Buckingham itself and also the Milton Keynes wards of Bradwell, Stantonbury, Stony Stratford & Wolverton.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 28, 2021 12:34:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 28, 2021 12:44:16 GMT
How about this?
Roughly from north to south (don't worry too much about the names, they're only markers at this stage) -
Milton Keynes North - 70624. C MK not a spectacularly good fit but this approach requires the MK seats to be kept small. Milton Keynes South - 70247. Very much based on Bletchley. Buckingham - 70990. It seems more natural to hive off western MK, rather than Bletchley, for a link with Buckingham. (I acknowledge that MK contributes the bulk of the electors and maybe this should be recognized in the name.) Mid Buckinghamshire - 76431. What was left over. But we've seen worse. Aylesbury - 75636. Chesham and Amersham - 73015. Unchanged. Wycombe - 71769. Maidenhead and Marlow - 72282. All right, technically a cross-county seat but a very tidy and compact one and the two main towns are well linked. Hurley ward would be better placed in this seat but it's over by 74. This can be fixed, if required, by exchanging the Wooburns and Cliveden with the following seat, in which case this seat comes in at 76186.
South Buckinghamshire - 69963. Or 'Beaconsfield'. The split of Langley is unfortunate, but I think any plan is likely to carve chunks out of Slough. It's 70913 if it does the Wooburns/Cliveden swap with the previous seat.
Slough - 70939. Windsor - 76999. Amazingly, now extends to only two UAs instead of the customary three. 72145 if Hurley is removed.
Bracknell - 70098. As many plans have had it.
The effect of treating the east Berks UAs with Bucks and MK is that the rest of Berks can be treated alone for five seats (we have plenty of workable ways of doing this) and Hants gets 18.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 28, 2021 12:48:47 GMT
Still banging that drum lol
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 28, 2021 14:31:04 GMT
Still banging that drum lol Rather this than the Silchester drum.
|
|