YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,367
|
Post by YL on Apr 8, 2021 13:09:38 GMT
The thing you have to remember about Oxford is some of the most "inner city" areas in character are geographically right on the fringes of town. Barton, Blackbird Leys, and Wood Farm might all adjoin Henley constituency but their tower blocks and overwhelmingly working class populations make them terrible fits for a Henley constituency. Quarry and Risinghurst is a bit more reasonable, but not a move you'd make unless you had to. Along with Littlemore and Marston, Q&R is a ward where some of it could sit happily outside of an Oxford constituency but definitely not all of it. In this case, the Quarry part goes right up to central Headington, which splits that community. Some plans put all of the Headington wards into a seat with rural areas, but that won't be a Henley-based seat, that'll probably be with Thame or Bicester. I am well aware of that, which is why I am warning this forum in case the BCE ends up recommending such plans. Do you think they're likely to? If you take all the South Oxfordshire wards entirely on the left bank of the Thames, you get a neat Henley constituency with an electorate of 70,626, which is convenient in a county which should be getting seven small seats. If you remove some of the northern end of that area to a Bicester-based seat, then Henley would need to expand somewhere but the loss of the northern end would make the Oxford suburbs an even less natural looking choice; indeed Barton & Sandhills and Quarry & Risinghurst would not be contiguous.
|
|
|
Post by anglian on Apr 11, 2021 16:21:26 GMT
Suggestions for Kent, Surrey and both Sussexes. Surrey was particularly challenging and I am not sure if my new suggested map for the county may have created more change than is absolutely necessary. Whilst a Surrey Hills/North Downs type constituency in the north east of the county is a good concept, it does make for large alterations to the existing constituency architecture. However, putting all of Horley into one constituency makes sense, and Dorking does link well with Reigate. I am inclined to feel that less change to existing constituencies may be better achieved by linking Surrey with another county such as putting it together with the Sussexes. The Sussexes came together fairly well and I have managed to preserve many of the existing constituencies in their substantive forms. Kent was also challenging. The north Kent coast less so than the south of the county. I am sure there are better suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 11, 2021 18:08:30 GMT
There's some interesting suggestions there in all three counties. I think yours us the only plan I've seen here which keeps Bognor Regis and Littlehampton but you've done so by detaching wards from each of those towns which is not ideal (OK Bersted isn't technically part of Bognor but obviously is an integral part of the built up area). Your 'Croydon South Outer' (which had been suggested I think on the pitchfork thread) actually has some merit as a concept although it has some flaws in the detail (I should have thought it would be better to include Tadworth etc than encroaching into Epsom & Ewell). Splitting Spelthorne in that way though is just bizarre and totally unnecessary - what's your thinking there?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 17, 2021 14:50:48 GMT
All the 18 seat Hampshires belong on the pitchfork thread (especially due to the carnage they do to Scum & environs). I maintain that the natural pairing for Hants is Surrey in this review and I hope that's where the BCE end up. I'm wondering whether the above suggestion from a long way upthread should be picked up again. A map was posted by Pete Whitehead at the time, but he was invested in a Hants-Berks arrangement so his heart wasn't really in it; and I was equally committed to treating Hants alone so I didn't take up the idea either. I'm having second thoughts now, mainly because although Surrey is all right with 12, I can't deny that the 18-seat Hants plan is deeply flawed. But I still feel that if Silchester is the right answer, then we must be asking the wrong question. So here's another attempt at a 28-seat arrangement for Hants and Surrey. (I've left out Portsmouth because obviously in this scenario it will be treated separately with its two seats unchanged.) Hampshire first -
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 17, 2021 15:11:55 GMT
- and now Surrey.
This arrangement has the major drawback of crossing the Surrey boundary when the county works out perfectly well if treated alone. On the other hand, if you are not going to treat Hants separately, an Aldershot-Farnham seat (or conceivably Farnborough-Camberley) is just about the best place to do it since the county boundary is extremely porous in this area (which I know reasonably well having at various times had relatives in Yately and Blackwater, friends in Aldershot and professional business in Camberley). Pete Whitehead's plan put Ash into the Aldershot & Farnham seat, which I agree makes a lot of sense in itself but I found (as he did) led to problems further east. So I eked out this seat with Haslemere instead, which allowed me to get Woking coterminous with its district and I think resulted in a reasonable map across Surrey as a whole (Reigate is not great though).
As for Hants, the scheme is far more respectful of the current map than any 18-seat version. Including the Portsmouths, seven current seats are completely unchanged and it could be eight because in theory Meon Valley could be left as is; but this would involve very awkward arrangements for Eastleigh and Winchester. And I had to adopt the idea floated by East Anglian Lefty for Southampton because the two current seats, although both within range, are well below average and leaving them unaltered leaves too many voters to be accommodated further north.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 17, 2021 15:24:53 GMT
- and now Surrey.
This arrangement has the major drawback of crossing the Surrey boundary when the county works out perfectly well if treated alone. On the other hand, if you are not going to treat Hants separately, an Aldershot-Farnham seat (or conceivably Farnborough-Camberley) is just about the best place to do it since the county boundary is extremely porous in this area (which I know reasonably well having at various times had relatives in Yately and Blackwater, friends in Aldershot and professional business in Camberley). Pete Whitehead's plan put Ash into the Aldershot & Farnham seat, which I agree makes a lot of sense in itself but I found (as he did) led to problems further east. So I eked out this seat with Haslemere instead, which allowed me to get Woking coterminous with its district and I think resulted in a reasonable map across Surrey as a whole (Reigate is not great though).
As for Hants, the scheme is far more respectful of the current map than any 18-seat version. Including the Portsmouths, seven current seats are completely unchanged and it could be eight because in theory Meon Valley could be left as is; but this would involve very awkward arrangements for Eastleigh and Winchester. And I had to adopt the idea floated by East Anglian Lefty for Southampton because the two current seats, although both within range, are well below average and leaving them unaltered leaves too many voters to be accommodated further north. On my scheme 11 of the 18 seats are completely unchanged (well two of those are changed only in so much as they realign with new ward boundaries). I might have another crack at this Hampshire/Surrey scheme for the crack but it will be no improvement if it reduces that number (and one of the 'unchanged' seats was Aldershot so that seems unlikely)
|
|
|
Post by dizz on Apr 17, 2021 16:00:19 GMT
- and now Surrey.
This arrangement has the major drawback of crossing the Surrey boundary when the county works out perfectly well if treated alone. On the other hand, if you are not going to treat Hants separately, an Aldershot-Farnham seat (or conceivably Farnborough-Camberley) is just about the best place to do it since the county boundary is extremely porous in this area (which I know reasonably well having at various times had relatives in Yately and Blackwater, friends in Aldershot and professional business in Camberley). Pete Whitehead's plan put Ash into the Aldershot & Farnham seat, which I agree makes a lot of sense in itself but I found (as he did) led to problems further east. So I eked out this seat with Haslemere instead, which allowed me to get Woking coterminous with its district and I think resulted in a reasonable map across Surrey as a whole (Reigate is not great though).
As for Hants, the scheme is far more respectful of the current map than any 18-seat version. Including the Portsmouths, seven current seats are completely unchanged and it could be eight because in theory Meon Valley could be left as is; but this would involve very awkward arrangements for Eastleigh and Winchester. And I had to adopt the idea floated by East Anglian Lefty for Southampton because the two current seats, although both within range, are well below average and leaving them unaltered leaves too many voters to be accommodated further north. Haslemere and Aldershot!!
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 17, 2021 16:09:50 GMT
- and now Surrey.
This arrangement has the major drawback of crossing the Surrey boundary when the county works out perfectly well if treated alone. On the other hand, if you are not going to treat Hants separately, an Aldershot-Farnham seat (or conceivably Farnborough-Camberley) is just about the best place to do it since the county boundary is extremely porous in this area (which I know reasonably well having at various times had relatives in Yately and Blackwater, friends in Aldershot and professional business in Camberley). Pete Whitehead's plan put Ash into the Aldershot & Farnham seat, which I agree makes a lot of sense in itself but I found (as he did) led to problems further east. So I eked out this seat with Haslemere instead, which allowed me to get Woking coterminous with its district and I think resulted in a reasonable map across Surrey as a whole (Reigate is not great though).
As for Hants, the scheme is far more respectful of the current map than any 18-seat version. Including the Portsmouths, seven current seats are completely unchanged and it could be eight because in theory Meon Valley could be left as is; but this would involve very awkward arrangements for Eastleigh and Winchester. And I had to adopt the idea floated by East Anglian Lefty for Southampton because the two current seats, although both within range, are well below average and leaving them unaltered leaves too many voters to be accommodated further north. Haslemere and Aldershot!! Yes, I mean the most (or only?) compelling reason for creating a cross-county seat between Hampshire in Surrey is the existence of this very obvious conurbation, centred on Aldershot, of which Farnham is the southern extension. So extending it well beyond that area seems to defeat the purpose and remove any justification (other than the WELL IT'S NOT SILCHESTER!! one). That is the reason that in my initial attempt at this (which was not as half-hearted as alleged) I included Ash along with Aldershot and Farnham which in itself is highly coherent but caused problems in the rest of Surrey which confirmed this arrangement was not worth the candle.
|
|
|
Post by dizz on Apr 17, 2021 16:16:27 GMT
The fit between Liphook, Grayshot, Haslemere, Hindhead + is definitely real.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 17, 2021 16:23:36 GMT
The fit between Liphook, Grayshot, Haslemere, Hindhead + is definitely real. Yes I've been trying something on those lines but those areas alone aren't enough to take the pressure of Hampshire - ideally you need to take out about 30k Hampshire voters into a cross county seat to minismise disruption elsewhere. You'd have to add Whitehill to the mix as well which then enables East Hampshire to expand to the North to take the excess voters from the NE Hants/Basingstoke/NW Hants group. That can be done (though it's messy) but the problem is then with the rest of Surrey (though I guess islington's plan would work with that arrangement just as well - I still think it is less good than the plans which leave Surrey alone for 12 seats)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 17, 2021 16:45:15 GMT
Haslemere and Aldershot!! Yes, I mean the most (or only?) compelling reason for creating a cross-county seat between Hampshire in Surrey is the existence of this very obvious conurbation, centred on Aldershot, of which Farnham is the southern extension. So extending it well beyond that area seems to defeat the purpose and remove any justification (other than the WELL IT'S NOT SILCHESTER!! one). That is the reason that in my initial attempt at this (which was not as half-hearted as alleged) I included Ash along with Aldershot and Farnham which in itself is highly coherent but caused problems in the rest of Surrey which confirmed this arrangement was not worth the candle. I actually find WELL IT'S NOT SILCHESTER!! to be a pretty persuasive argument. But that aside, you can do this -
Ash is now in with Aldershot and Farnham, NW Surrey includes the whole of Surrey Heath and Weybridge and Esher stay with Runnymede and Walton respectively, both as at present. The Leatherhead seat now takes in Dorking, while Haslemere stays in SW Surrey (or you might call it S Surrey in this configuration) and will be deprived of the opportunity to become better acquainted with Aldershot.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,562
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 17, 2021 20:09:39 GMT
Yes, I mean the most (or only?) compelling reason for creating a cross-county seat between Hampshire in Surrey is the existence of this very obvious conurbation, centred on Aldershot, of which Farnham is the southern extension. So extending it well beyond that area seems to defeat the purpose and remove any justification (other than the WELL IT'S NOT SILCHESTER!! one). That is the reason that in my initial attempt at this (which was not as half-hearted as alleged) I included Ash along with Aldershot and Farnham which in itself is highly coherent but caused problems in the rest of Surrey which confirmed this arrangement was not worth the candle. I actually find WELL IT'S NOT SILCHESTER!! to be a pretty persuasive argument. But that aside, you can do this -
Ash is now in with Aldershot and Farnham, NW Surrey includes the whole of Surrey Heath and Walton and Esher stay with Runnymede and Weybridge respectively, both as at present. The Leatherhead seat now takes in Dorking and Haslemere stays in SW Surrey (or you might call it S Surrey in this configuration) and will be deprived of the opportunity to become better acquainted with Aldershot.
That's as close to holy grail as you can get. The South Surrey seat is a Meon Valley, but if that can exist...
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 18, 2021 8:33:59 GMT
Yes that version of Surrey is pretty decent and better than many of the standalone schemes (I think you can afford to put Pilgrims in the Aldershot & Farnham seat which would be a better fit than with Surrey Heath). I still think Surrey works well enough on its own to make this unnecessary (as does Buckinghamshire) whereas Berkshire doesn't. Obviously we're never going to agree on an overall strategy for this region, but taken on its own that plan is pretty good (and however you do Surrey you're going to end up with a South Surrey seat which is something along those lines, just as a Mid/West Bucks seat is unavoidable)
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 18, 2021 11:22:06 GMT
Any way to get rid of one or both of the orphan wards? This Surrey looks very very good apart from that minor issue (though parts of Hampshire don't.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 18, 2021 11:36:26 GMT
Thanks for comments and I agree with Pete Whitehead that Pilgrims ward fits better with Aldershot & Farnham (see map below). It's a small ward so the numbers are fine either way. Subject to that change, I think I'm now happy with this version of Surrey + Aldershot town.
But on the Hants side, although the version I posted yesterday is a great improvement on the 18-seat plan for Hants alone, I still dislike the disruption to the current Southampton seats. On the other hand, they are both well below average size so keeping them as they are means that a lot of electors need to be housed in the seats further north. At my first stab I couldn't come up with a legal plan but I've had another go this morning, viz:
This keeps the two Southamptons unchanged, and Meon Valley likewise. All four surplus Eastleigh wards go in with Winchester, which looks quite tidy in this arrangement. Romsey on the other hand now extends a long way north and I think would better be called W Hants. The NW Hants seat (or Andover if you prefer) is a bit messy (and only 16 below the maximum), but it's NE Hants (or whatever you'd call it) that takes the biscuit as a classic of the 'what was left over' genre. (Actually in its sprawling nature and complete lack of focus it's a bit reminiscent of - well, you know, the 'S' seat (I'm trying not to mention it) - but at least it's all in the same county.) Also, ideally one wouldn't put Bramley in with Basingstoke but those extra electors have got to be soaked up somewhere.
Notwithstanding the drawbacks in the north of the county, the rest of Hants works quite well and I'm inclining to this as my preferred scheme but welcome comments or alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 18, 2021 15:18:38 GMT
The NW Hants seat (or Andover if you prefer) is a bit messy (and only 16 below the maximum), but it's NE Hants (or whatever you'd call it) that takes the biscuit as a classic of the 'what was left over' genre. (Actually in its sprawling nature and complete lack of focus it's a bit reminiscent of - well, you know, the 'S' seat (I'm trying not to mention it) - but at least it's all in the same county.) Alas you cannot use the name as Silchester is in your Basingstoke seat. looks like nothing a good ward split or two couldn't solve tbh.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 20, 2021 17:53:17 GMT
One for the "You are awful, but I like you" pile: Oxford E 71854 Oxford W & Abingdon 71294 Wantage 70549 Didcot & Henley 69990 Bicester & Thame 70443 Banbury 72008 Witney 73593 Four seats are entirely contained in a single local authority and West Oxfordshire is only divided two ways rather than the three it ends up in in most maps. 119259 electors are shifted into a different constituency (Bicester is the successor to the present Henley; Didcot & Henley counts as the new seat) which isn't bad given 70k have to move anyway and all the existing seats are oversized. The major downside is that Oxford West & Abingdon is incredibly narrow. You can drive from the north end of the constituency to the south without leaving its boundaries, but the reverse journey may put you just outside of the constituency by the width of the centre line of Old Abingdon Road. I personally wouldn't consider that a dealbreaker (not including Botley is admittedly more problematic) but I suspect a lot of you will not agree for perfectly sensible reasons.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 20, 2021 18:18:20 GMT
One for the "You are awful, but I like you" pile: Oxford E 71854 Oxford W & Abingdon 71294 Wantage 70549 Didcot & Henley 69990 Bicester & Thame 70443 Banbury 72008 Witney 73593 Four seats are entirely contained in a single local authority and West Oxfordshire is only divided two ways rather than the three it ends up in in most maps. 119259 electors are shifted into a different constituency (Bicester is the successor to the present Henley; Didcot & Henley counts as the new seat) which isn't bad given 70k have to move anyway and all the existing seats are oversized. The major downside is that Oxford West & Abingdon is incredibly narrow. You can drive from the north end of the constituency to the south without leaving its boundaries, but the reverse journey may put you just outside of the constituency by the width of the centre line of Old Abingdon Road. I personally wouldn't consider that a dealbreaker (not including Botley is admittedly more problematic) but I suspect a lot of you will not agree for perfectly sensible reasons. Which reminds me, I never posted my Oxfordshire, maybe because it's very similar to others upthread. But for the record -
Banbury - 69943. Bicester - 70389. The new seat. Witney - 72938. I'm not wild about crossing the Thames and I admire East Anglian Lefty for avoiding it, but I still feel this is a better pattern overall. Oxford West and Abingdon - 72521. Oxford East - 71854. Someone upthread took exception to plans that, like this, cut right through the centre of Oxford. I don't understand this objection. If a city is being divided between two seats, both named after it, then it's perfectly reasonable for the boundary to go through the middle. Wantage - 71460. Henley - 70626.
And, it's perhaps now necessary for me to add, not a split ward in sight.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,367
|
Post by YL on May 21, 2021 7:15:35 GMT
Oxford East - 71854. Someone upthread took exception to plans that, like this, cut right through the centre of Oxford. I don't understand this objection. If a city is being divided between two seats, both named after it, then it's perfectly reasonable for the boundary to go through the middle. I don't think residential communities in city centres are more obviously splittable than other communities, are they? (Though perhaps they are less likely to object.) I would argue that Holywell and Carfax & Jericho wards have a lot in common and that the boundary along the Cherwell makes a lot more sense as a constituency boundary than the boundary between them. My opinion would be more clear cut if the boundary between Carfax & Jericho and Hinksey Park were actually the Thames, but it isn't: there's a small area north of the Thames, just west of Folly Bridge, which is in Hinksey Park. I think the boundary there is better to use than the Carfax/Holywell one, though, so I'm happy with my preference to move Holywell to OxWAb and retain Hinksey Park in Oxford East. (The existence of that area does, however, make me want to reject some of the proposals upthread which move Hinksey Park out of an Oxford seat altogether.) Apart from those two wards, however, I believe that map is identical to the more recent one of the two I posted.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 21, 2021 8:34:39 GMT
An interesting policy point by YL but I think I disagree.
But let me acknowledge that this is a matter of 'mild preference' as opposed to 'unshakable dogma': I shouldn't worry too much about it either way.
But, all else being equal, if Anytown is being divided into north and south seats, both named after it, then I think it's not ideal if electors that live clearly to the south of the town centre find themselves in Anytown N, and vice versa. So all else being equal, I'd prefer the dividing line to run more or less through the middle.
One caveat here is that a lot of towns (although not Oxford) have a "Central" ward (not necessarily by that name) that is clearly intended to encompass the core area of the town ('downtown' as Americans call it). In that case, that ward has to go one way or the other; of course I wouldn't split a ward just for the sake of running the boundary down the High Street.
And in some cases, the distribution of population and the way the town has developed mean the most natural and equitable boundary runs well to one side of the core area. Oxford is an example: from its historic core, the city has expanded much farther eastwards than westwards, so if Oxford were entitled to two whole seats the central area would fall well within the west seat.
But it's an issue I wouldn't lose any sleep over; as I say, it's no more than a mild preference. But it means that my answer to YL's question is yes: I do think that if a city needs to be split, the central community, even if substantially residential in character, is more splittable than other communities.
|
|