|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 8, 2021 16:47:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 8, 2021 17:10:16 GMT
Some preliminary thoughts on the Ashford set up. These days I'm a bit detatched from all this, like this is going to apply after I'm long gone. Also, I know the arrangement that applied "in my day" which was a coterminous borough/constituency is no longer remotely possible and any alternative is bound to be messy. That said,potentially I now myself in a new constituency(Weald of Kent) where the town I look to for almost all my services (Ashford), 6 miles away,is in a different constituency, and the larger village I look to for certain other services, like GP practice, library, car servicing and indeed religious services, (Charing,just 3 miles away), is in yet a third constituency.There's messy and there's really messy. Actually I was in favour of a Weald of Kent constituency, and for that name rather than Tenterden as I think Tenterden is on most counts the largest town in it with some 7k population, but there are several other small market towns/overgrown villages which would not regard Tenterden as their natural leader. On the whole though I would have liked personally to stay out of WoK and remain in Ashford. Indeed the boundary of Ashford constituency has been so tightly drawn on the south west side that quite a lot of new estates will finish up in WoK. This is to allow Ashford to take in two large rural wards (the two North Downs wards) from F & H. Will give a more considered view in due course. I see your point, but essentially it results from the decision to extend Ashford eastwards to include wards from Shepway. Personally, I'd have put the Shepway wards in with Canterbury, but then you have to rehouse Whitstable.
If I were going to make any representations about Kent (which seems unlikely), it would be to point out that they've made the so-called Chatham & Aylesford seat even worse (if that's possible) than it is already: it still doesn't include Chatham town centre, it's lost half of Aylesford and acquired a chunk of Rochester, and Snodland and Larkfield are stranded on the wrong side of the Medway with no bridge within the seat. It would make more sense on the ground (but maybe look worse on the map) if it swapped Rochester S ward for River; but I'm not sure how you'd solve its other problems given the approach they've taken with Maidstone. You could at least give it a more appropriate name. I suggest Medway Banks.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 8, 2021 17:25:16 GMT
I see your point, but essentially it results from the decision to extend Ashford eastwards to include wards from Shepway. Personally, I'd have put the Shepway wards in with Canterbury, but then you have to rehouse Whitstable.
If I were going to make any representations about Kent (which seems unlikely), it would be to point out that they've made the so-called Chatham & Aylesford seat even worse (if that's possible) than it is already: it still doesn't include Chatham town centre, it's lost half of Aylesford and acquired a chunk of Rochester, and Snodland and Larkfield are stranded on the wrong side of the Medway with no bridge within the seat. It would make more sense on the ground (but maybe look worse on the map) if it swapped Rochester S ward for River; but I'm not sure how you'd solve its other problems given the approach they've taken with Maidstone. You could at least give it a more appropriate name. I suggest Medway Banks. minionofmedway ?
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 8, 2021 17:30:02 GMT
Unexpectedly pleased with the proposals, especially the High Wycombe and Reading areas, although they should rename Earley and Woodley Reading South East because that's what it is (the parishioners of Shinfield and Sonning may complain, but they do not make up the bulk of the seat) and Mid Berks should be Tilehurst or Kennet Valley because it is not in the middle of Berks by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 8, 2021 17:31:42 GMT
You could at least give it a more appropriate name. I suggest Medway Banks. minionofmedway ? Medways of Midas.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 8, 2021 17:37:04 GMT
You have to admire the barchart.
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jun 8, 2021 19:24:53 GMT
My take on the proposals for Oxfordshire: - Henley is far better in its new condensed form, now it has lost the villages north of Oxford;
- Oxford West & Abingdon looses Kidlington but gains the city centre and Marcham, thus increasingly becoming a Lib Dem safe seat;
- Oxford East looses the city centre wards;
- Didcot & Wantage (an area that has seen significant population growth) looses Faringdon and other wards in the west and north of the Vale, gains Sandford & the Wittenhams from Henley - a ward which straddles both sides of the Thames. The villages in the south of the ward sit comfortably in this seat, due to their proximity and links with Didcot and Wallingford; the villages to the north not so much. I've seen a tweet suggesting that this would be notionally Lib Dem on 2019 local elections results - not that too much should be read into that;
- Bicester (another area that has seen significant population growth) forms the new seat in Oxfordshire, taking in the town itself, the immediate surrounding villages, Kidlington, and villages lying west of the latter. Overall, it mostly makes sense, although I'm imagining there might be some resistance from residents of Eynsham and nearby villages, who look more toward Witney. Perhaps a solution would be a simple renaming: Bicester & Woodstock. Yes, Woodstock isn't huge, but it's a historically important town, one which the villages in the west of the seat have far greater ties to;
- Banbury looses Bicester and the surrounding villages, gains Chipping Norton, Charlbury, and rural areas in the north west of the country; overall, for me, this seems sensible.
- Witney looses wards to the new Bicester seat as well as Banbury, gains wards south of the Thames from Wantage. For me, this is the "problem seat", and not only because of the Thames-crossing, which is unavoidable under the current variation quota. A seat that stretches from Foscot in the Cotwolds to the Uffington White Horse doesn't, I'd suggest, seem "natural" and lacks community cohesion. Really, what we have are "left overs" from the Vale, that don't numerically fit into Didcot & Wantage, and thus bundled in what's left of the Witney seat that has lost wards to Bicester and Banbury.
Overall, the initial plans are certainly not terrible for Oxfordshire, and I can't see there being too many changes to them - mainly because the numbers are so tight. But I wish something better could be done with the Vale, which (for me) is a real mess under the current proposals!
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 8, 2021 19:58:36 GMT
Thoughts on the Solent area: New Forest constituencies unchanged. Same with Southampton Test and Itchen. Eastleigh: takes Chandler's Ford and Hiltingbury wards (both Eastleigh BC) from Winchester constituency while losing a large area from Hedge End to Hamble (all in Eastleigh BC). Unlike Eastleigh Borough Council and the previous constituency, this is truly well described as Eastleigh, rather than being "Eastleigh plus the rest of the eastern periphery of Southampton". So very sensible. On the parliamentary level, the Lib Dems have fallen back massively from 2015-19 but this probably weakens that decline by a small amount. Winchester: With the loss of Chandler's Ford and Hiltingbury, the constituency takes in a vast rural area. Definitely worse than before for the Lib Dems, but if I were Winchester Lib Dems, I would consider it as a reason to put more effort in, rather than a reason to give up hope. Hedge End: I didn't expect this at all - I would have struggled to believe that it has enough people to be a constituency if someone had explained it to me, although on a map it is believable. What I still can't believe is that a constituency named Hedge End could plausibly exist, and that Hedge End genuinely may be the largest settlement in the constituency without taking a one or two Southampton wards in. However, I think Hamble, River Hamble or Hamble Valley would be a much better name. Fareham has changed somewhat with the Hedge End constituency, instead taking in an area north of Portsmouth. It seems fairly sensible to me. I don't think Gosport, Havant or the Portsmouths have changed - certainly not drastically. The two constituencies on the Isle of Wight have sensible boundaries IMO, although the names aren't great - Isle of Wight West doesn't get that far from the east coast! IoW West and Central, Newport and IoW Rural or IoW (Newport and Rural) are better IMO, whilst IoW East is probably fine. A train ride from Wootton in IoW East to Ashey in IoW West covers a fair distance.... eastwards! I suppose the difficulty in using Newport in the name of an Isle of Wight seat is that we have a proposed Newport Pagnall seat as well as Newport East and West in Wales…. It could get very confusing! Should propose Newport constituencies in Shropshire and Essex too.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 8, 2021 20:18:16 GMT
I suppose the difficulty in using Newport in the name of an Isle of Wight seat is that we have a proposed Newport Pagnall seat as well as Newport East and West in Wales…. It could get very confusing! Should propose Newport constituencies in Shropshire and Essex too. and Cornwall. There's precedent for that!
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jun 8, 2021 20:18:17 GMT
I suppose the difficulty in using Newport in the name of an Isle of Wight seat is that we have a proposed Newport Pagnall seat as well as Newport East and West in Wales…. It could get very confusing! Should propose Newport constituencies in Shropshire and Essex too. If Newport-on-Tay had its own constituency, you can imagine the surprised looks on the BBC commentator on election night when they hear that the SNP have taken Newport.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 8, 2021 20:38:38 GMT
Should propose Newport constituencies in Shropshire and Essex too. If Newport-on-Tay had its own constituency, you can imagine the surprised looks on the BBC commentator on election night when they hear that the SNP have taken Newport. Acc'd to wikipedia there's two Newports in Scotland. And two in Wales.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,824
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 9, 2021 15:55:47 GMT
My views on the Isle of Wight (in a nutshell) "YUCK"
I wish to object to both the makeup and naming of "West Isle of Wight". Using the same rules that the Commission has to adhere to, I wish to propose a "Ryde, Cowes and the Needles" constituency comprising the following wards from the Isle of Wight council:
Totland and Colwell (3,146), Freshwater South (3,132), Freshwater North and Yarmouth (2,620), Brighstone, Calbourne and Shalfleet (2,613), Parkhurst and Hunnyhill (2,759), Cowes South and Northwood (2,914), Cowes West and Gurnard (2,903), Cowes North (2,809), Cowes, Medina (3,082), East Cowes (3,154), Osborne (3,128), Fairlee and Whippingham (2,973), Wootton Bridge (2,850) and Binstead and Fishbourne (2,909) for a total electorate of 57,287 (51.2% of the island's electorate).
I wish to object to both the makeup and naming of "East Isle of Wight". Using the same rules that the Commission has to adhere to, I wish to propose a "Newport, Sandown and Shanklin" constituency comprising the following wards from the Isle of Wight council:
Carisbrooke and Gunville (2,764), Chale, Niton and Shorwell (2,947), Ventor and St. Lawrence (3,027), Central Rural (2,881), Mountjoy and Shide (2,752), Newport West (2,906), Newport Central (2,705), Pan and Barton (2,723), Wroxall, Lowtherville and Bonchurch (3,125), Shanklin South (2,969), Shanklin Central (2,923), Lake South (2,926), Newchurch, Havenstreet and Ashey (2,904), Lake North (2,858), Sandown South (2,869), Sandown North (2,660), Bembridge (3,223), Bradling and St. Helens (2,811) and Nettlestone and Seaview (2,456) for a total electorate of 54,429 (48.8% of the island's electorate)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 9, 2021 16:14:36 GMT
My views on the Isle of Wight (in a nutshell) "YUCK" I wish to object to both the makeup and naming of "West Isle of Wight". Using the same rules that the Commission has to adhere to, I wish to propose a "Ryde, Cowes and the Needles" constituency comprising the following wards from the Isle of Wight council: Totland and Colwell (3,146), Freshwater South (3,132), Freshwater North and Yarmouth (2,620), Brighstone, Calbourne and Shalfleet (2,613), Parkhurst and Hunnyhill (2,759), Cowes South and Northwood (2,914), Cowes West and Gurnard (2,903), Cowes North (2,809), Cowes, Medina (3,082), East Cowes (3,154), Osborne (3,128), Fairlee and Whippingham (2,973), Wootton Bridge (2,850) and Binstead and Fishbourne (2,909) for a total electorate of 57,287 (51.2% of the island's electorate). I wish to object to both the makeup and naming of "East Isle of Wight". Using the same rules that the Commission has to adhere to, I wish to propose a "Newport, Sandown and Shanklin" constituency comprising the following wards from the Isle of Wight council: Carisbrooke and Gunville (2,764), Chale, Niton and Shorwell (2,947), Ventor and St. Lawrence (3,027), Central Rural (2,881), Mountjoy and Shide (2,752), Newport West (2,906), Newport Central (2,705), Pan and Barton (2,723), Wroxall, Lowtherville and Bonchurch (3,125), Shanklin South (2,969), Shanklin Central (2,923), Lake South (2,926), Newchurch, Havenstreet and Ashey (2,904), Lake North (2,858), Sandown South (2,869), Sandown North (2,660), Bembridge (3,223), Bradling and St. Helens (2,811) and Nettlestone and Seaview (2,456) for a total electorate of 54,429 (48.8% of the island's electorate) I don't think the commumications are such that it makes sense to link Ryde with Yarmouth etc. I think the East West configuration is basically sound but they've messed up by splitting Cowes. I think the only changes you need to make to the Commissions proposals is to move Ventnor, Wroxhall etc and Newchurch etc into East and East Cowes, Osborne and Fairlee & Whippingham the other way
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Jun 9, 2021 16:19:02 GMT
My views on the Isle of Wight (in a nutshell) "YUCK" I wish to object to both the makeup and naming of "West Isle of Wight". Using the same rules that the Commission has to adhere to, I wish to propose a "Ryde, Cowes and the Needles" constituency comprising the following wards from the Isle of Wight council: Totland and Colwell (3,146), Freshwater South (3,132), Freshwater North and Yarmouth (2,620), Brighstone, Calbourne and Shalfleet (2,613), Parkhurst and Hunnyhill (2,759), Cowes South and Northwood (2,914), Cowes West and Gurnard (2,903), Cowes North (2,809), Cowes, Medina (3,082), East Cowes (3,154), Osborne (3,128), Fairlee and Whippingham (2,973), Wootton Bridge (2,850) and Binstead and Fishbourne (2,909) for a total electorate of 57,287 (51.2% of the island's electorate). I wish to object to both the makeup and naming of "East Isle of Wight". Using the same rules that the Commission has to adhere to, I wish to propose a "Newport, Sandown and Shanklin" constituency comprising the following wards from the Isle of Wight council: Carisbrooke and Gunville (2,764), Chale, Niton and Shorwell (2,947), Ventor and St. Lawrence (3,027), Central Rural (2,881), Mountjoy and Shide (2,752), Newport West (2,906), Newport Central (2,705), Pan and Barton (2,723), Wroxall, Lowtherville and Bonchurch (3,125), Shanklin South (2,969), Shanklin Central (2,923), Lake South (2,926), Newchurch, Havenstreet and Ashey (2,904), Lake North (2,858), Sandown South (2,869), Sandown North (2,660), Bembridge (3,223), Bradling and St. Helens (2,811) and Nettlestone and Seaview (2,456) for a total electorate of 54,429 (48.8% of the island's electorate) I don't think the commumications are such that it makes sense to link Ryde with Yarmouth etc. I think the East West configuration is basically sound but they've messed up by splitting Cowes. I think the only changes you need to make to the Commissions proposals is to move Ventnor, Wroxhall etc and Newchurch etc into East and East Cowes, Osborne and Fairlee & Whippingham the other way Far more polite than I would have put it. The only plausible connection between Ryde, Fishbourne, Cowes and Yarmouth is that you've succeeded in putting all the ferry connections in the same seat. Not sure that's what is meant by 'well connected' though.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 9, 2021 16:21:07 GMT
I don't think the commumications are such that it makes sense to link Ryde with Yarmouth etc. I think the East West configuration is basically sound but they've messed up by splitting Cowes. I think the only changes you need to make to the Commissions proposals is to move Ventnor, Wroxhall etc and Newchurch etc into East and East Cowes, Osborne and Fairlee & Whippingham the other way Far more polite than I would have put it. The only plausible connection between Ryde, Fishbourne, Cowes and Yarmouth is that you've succeeded in putting all the ferry connections in the same seat. Not sure that's what is meant by 'well connected' though. I can't be rude to Harry in every reply I make to him, tempting as it may be..
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 9, 2021 16:56:58 GMT
Hove and Brighton West is a bit bland, especially when the Brighton seats have had proper names for years. apparently that's actually the unchanged Hove (& Portslade) constituency!? Does it even extend into pre-74 Brighton in any way or form? What were they smoking?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 9, 2021 16:57:49 GMT
BritainElects shows the new Windsor constituency as notionally Labour.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 9, 2021 17:33:07 GMT
BritainElects shows the new Windsor constituency as notionally Labour. i think i just saw that error being corrected live.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 9, 2021 17:38:27 GMT
Hove and Brighton West is a bit bland, especially when the Brighton seats have had proper names for years. apparently that's actually the unchanged Hove (& Portslade) constituency!? Does it even extend into pre-74 Brighton in any way or form? What were they smoking? No it does not. The Hove constituency has consistently retained the same boundaries since its creation in 1950; it has never encompassed any part of Brighton itself.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 9, 2021 17:39:55 GMT
apparently that's actually the unchanged Hove (& Portslade) constituency!? Does it even extend into pre-74 Brighton in any way or form? What were they smoking? No it does not. The Hove constituency has consistently retained the same boundaries since its creation in 1950; it has never encompassed any part of Brighton itself. that's what I thought.
|
|