|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 13, 2021 9:33:30 GMT
Any more thoughts on the whole Berkshire/Hampshire/Surrey arrangement? I don't think it's worth going back to the "Silchester" approach: the BCE seem to have considered that and rejected it, and (1) I don't think I'd be able to come up with sufficient arguments in its favour. But I'm not terribly convinced by Egham in the Windsor seat either: it seems like a rather ugly tack-on across a county boundary, and it separates Egham from Englefield Green. As islington said, it's possible to give the three eastern Berkshire UAs four seats, but whole ward solutions are unsatisfactory. Some time ago, Pete Whitehead pointed out that part of Clewer & Dedworth West ward is actually in Bray parish and so perhaps an excuse could be made for transferring it to Maidenhead; if you do that you can get a viable plan. However it does look to me as if that area is mostly in the Windsor built up area, so I'm not really convinced. (2) Is there a realistic alternative to Egham as a small area to tack on to eastern Berkshire?(1) Me neither.
Really ??
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Jun 13, 2021 12:04:26 GMT
Any more thoughts on the whole Berkshire/Hampshire/Surrey arrangement? I don't think it's worth going back to the "Silchester" approach: the BCE seem to have considered that and rejected it, and (1) I don't think I'd be able to come up with sufficient arguments in its favour. But I'm not terribly convinced by Egham in the Windsor seat either: it seems like a rather ugly tack-on across a county boundary, and it separates Egham from Englefield Green. As islington said, it's possible to give the three eastern Berkshire UAs four seats, but whole ward solutions are unsatisfactory. Some time ago, Pete Whitehead pointed out that part of Clewer & Dedworth West ward is actually in Bray parish and so perhaps an excuse could be made for transferring it to Maidenhead; if you do that you can get a viable plan. However it does look to me as if that area is mostly in the Windsor built up area, so I'm not really convinced. (2) Is there a realistic alternative to Egham as a small area to tack on to eastern Berkshire?(1) Me neither.
(2) Well, this is exactly where I got to when looking at this area. Once I'd decided that crossing the Hants-Berks border didn't yield a satisfactory solution, then it made sense to treat the three west Berks UAs together for 5 seats, as indeed the BCE has done (I'm not wild about the way they've done it, but I don't feel strongly enough to make representations). And once you've done that, as YL says, you've got to do something with the three east Berks UAs. If you try to give them four whole seats you have barely enough electors to play with and, so far as I can see, there is no good outcome whether you split wards or not. The BCE has solved the problem by linking with Surrey, but the county boundary doesn't really lend itself to being crossed and the result, although not disastrous, is messy. So I still think, to answer yl's question, that Berkshire's boundary with Bucks is altogether more porous and crossable than its boundary with Surrey: and this approach enables us (a) to remove Marlow from Bucks, thus permitting better boundaries in Wycombe; and (b) to avoid what is otherwise a horribly awkward boundary between Windsor and Slough. See maps upthread. But although I still think this is the best answer, it's certainly not perfect and it's not my intention to make a submission in this area.
I hadn't thought of removing Marlow and (presumably) linking it with Maidenhead, have tried it, and quite like it. Thinking of the knock-on effects of this, would Bracknell (or at least most of Bracknell), Sandhurst and Yateley work as a Hants/Berks crossover seat? I don't know the area, so realise that it may not be. But if it is, then maybe something like this: I don't know whether the South Bucks/Slough boundary would be workable, and I'm aware that the lump transferred from Runnymede and Weybridge to Surrey Heath is not great.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 12:26:58 GMT
(1) Me neither.
(2) Well, this is exactly where I got to when looking at this area. Once I'd decided that crossing the Hants-Berks border didn't yield a satisfactory solution, then it made sense to treat the three west Berks UAs together for 5 seats, as indeed the BCE has done (I'm not wild about the way they've done it, but I don't feel strongly enough to make representations). And once you've done that, as YL says, you've got to do something with the three east Berks UAs. If you try to give them four whole seats you have barely enough electors to play with and, so far as I can see, there is no good outcome whether you split wards or not. The BCE has solved the problem by linking with Surrey, but the county boundary doesn't really lend itself to being crossed and the result, although not disastrous, is messy. So I still think, to answer yl's question, that Berkshire's boundary with Bucks is altogether more porous and crossable than its boundary with Surrey: and this approach enables us (a) to remove Marlow from Bucks, thus permitting better boundaries in Wycombe; and (b) to avoid what is otherwise a horribly awkward boundary between Windsor and Slough. See maps upthread. But although I still think this is the best answer, it's certainly not perfect and it's not my intention to make a submission in this area.
I hadn't thought of removing Marlow and (presumably) linking it with Maidenhead, have tried it, and quite like it. Thinking of the knock-on effects of this, would Bracknell (or at least most of Bracknell), Sandhurst and Yateley work as a Hants/Berks crossover seat? I don't know the area, so realise that it may not be. But if it is, then maybe something like this: I don't know whether the South Bucks/Slough boundary would be workable, and I'm aware that the lump transferred from Runnymede and Weybridge to Surrey Heath is not great. That is not bad at all, although I think you leave Yateley in Hants and avoid the split of Bracknell town. You can then add Bray and Hurley to keep Windsor within range and add the Wooburns to Maidenhead. That leaves Slough plus the former S Bucks LA with just enough electors for two seats - it's a bit fiddly but it can be done, and it leaves a better-looking Slough than if you hive bits off to put in Windsor.
On the Surrey side, the problem with Surrey Heath is that it's too small for a seat but I'd suggest making up the numbers with a couple of Guildford wards and there are plans upthread showing this approach.
But overall, yes, I think this is the best (or least bad) approach to this area.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 9:33:46 GMT
Looking at Hampshire and Surrey, a few minor tweaks that would seem to me to be definite improvements:
1. Whitehill should be unified in the cross-border seat. That means East Hampshire needs an orphan ward from another district. Odiham from Hart ward isn't a great fit, but it does allow improvements to other seats.
2. Eliminate the ward split of Oakley & the Candovers and put it all into NW Hampshire.
3. Basingstoke then gains the ward of Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown, uniting the urban area, and Bramley (solely for numbers reasons.)
4. NE Hampshire loses Odiham and Bramley, but gains Chineham and Yateley East. Looks a bit ugly, but it means Yateley is no longer split.
5. As others have suggested, swap Egham for Englefield Green and Virginia Water
6. Put South Park and Woodhatch back into Reigate and Leatherhead back into Dorking. Make the numbers work by moving Box Hill & Headley into Epsom & Ewell.
Alternatively, you can give East Hampshire a ward from Winchester district, put the orphan ward from Hedge End into Winchester, keep Odiham in NE Hampshire but maintain the split of Yateley. That looks neater, so might be an easier sell to the BCE, but it's a question of whether you're more bothered by town splits or neat-looking seats.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2021 10:31:04 GMT
Looking at Hampshire and Surrey, a few minor tweaks that would seem to me to be definite improvements: 1. Whitehill should be unified in the cross-border seat. That means East Hampshire needs an orphan ward from another district. Odiham from Hart ward isn't a great fit, but it does allow improvements to other seats. 2. Eliminate the ward split of Oakley & the Candovers and put it all into NW Hampshire. 3. Basingstoke then gains the ward of Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown, uniting the urban area, and Bramley (solely for numbers reasons.) 4. NE Hampshire loses Odiham and Bramley, but gains Chineham and Yateley East. Looks a bit ugly, but it means Yateley is no longer split. 5. As others have suggested, swap Egham for Englefield Green and Virginia Water 6. Put South Park and Woodhatch back into Reigate and Leatherhead back into Dorking. Make the numbers work by moving Box Hill & Headley into Epsom & Ewell. Alternatively, you can give East Hampshire a ward from Winchester district, put the orphan ward from Hedge End into Winchester, keep Odiham in NE Hampshire but maintain the split of Yateley. That looks neater, so might be an easier sell to the BCE, but it's a question of whether you're more bothered by town splits or neat-looking seats. If this is all you want to do, and you don't mind awkward-looking seats, there's no need for such major surgery: simply swap Whitehill Hogmoor ward into the cross-border seat and send Headley the other way. (The latter has road links with the rest of the E Hants seat if you don't mind driving along picturesque country lanes.)
E Hants - 73119; Farnham & Whitehill - 71514.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 18, 2021 10:54:58 GMT
Yes, but if you do that then you've got too many electors to fix the Basingstoke area.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 18, 2021 11:03:22 GMT
Funny this thread has come to life now as I was just thinking about it. My plans in this region envisaged keeping Chesham and Amersham intact but for no particular reason I have suddenly hit on a much better plan for South Bucks
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,516
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 18, 2021 22:41:36 GMT
Looking at Hampshire and Surrey, a few minor tweaks that would seem to me to be definite improvements: 1. Whitehill should be unified in the cross-border seat. That means East Hampshire needs an orphan ward from another district. Odiham from Hart ward isn't a great fit, but it does allow improvements to other seats. 2. Eliminate the ward split of Oakley & the Candovers and put it all into NW Hampshire. 3. Basingstoke then gains the ward of Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown, uniting the urban area, and Bramley (solely for numbers reasons.) 4. NE Hampshire loses Odiham and Bramley, but gains Chineham and Yateley East. Looks a bit ugly, but it means Yateley is no longer split. 5. As others have suggested, swap Egham for Englefield Green and Virginia Water 6. Put South Park and Woodhatch back into Reigate and Leatherhead back into Dorking. Make the numbers work by moving Box Hill & Headley into Epsom & Ewell. Alternatively, you can give East Hampshire a ward from Winchester district, put the orphan ward from Hedge End into Winchester, keep Odiham in NE Hampshire but maintain the split of Yateley. That looks neater, so might be an easier sell to the BCE, but it's a question of whether you're more bothered by town splits or neat-looking seats. Worth taking into account that Yateley is already split between constituencies as Blackwater & Hawley ward contains part of Yateley town itself (the Frogmore area, albeit a slightly detach part but within the town council area) and with ward boundary realignment a bit more of Yateley town would become part of Aldershot even without putting in Yateley East.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 19, 2021 1:03:03 GMT
Looking at Hampshire and Surrey, a few minor tweaks that would seem to me to be definite improvements: 1. Whitehill should be unified in the cross-border seat. That means East Hampshire needs an orphan ward from another district. Odiham from Hart ward isn't a great fit, but it does allow improvements to other seats. 2. Eliminate the ward split of Oakley & the Candovers and put it all into NW Hampshire. 3. Basingstoke then gains the ward of Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown, uniting the urban area, and Bramley (solely for numbers reasons.) 4. NE Hampshire loses Odiham and Bramley, but gains Chineham and Yateley East. Looks a bit ugly, but it means Yateley is no longer split. 5. As others have suggested, swap Egham for Englefield Green and Virginia Water 6. Put South Park and Woodhatch back into Reigate and Leatherhead back into Dorking. Make the numbers work by moving Box Hill & Headley into Epsom & Ewell. Alternatively, you can give East Hampshire a ward from Winchester district, put the orphan ward from Hedge End into Winchester, keep Odiham in NE Hampshire but maintain the split of Yateley. That looks neater, so might be an easier sell to the BCE, but it's a question of whether you're more bothered by town splits or neat-looking seats. You're not uniting Basingstoke if you take out Chineham though, it is a peripheral estate, but a lot closer than Bramley is.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 21, 2021 8:28:34 GMT
Looking at Hampshire and Surrey, a few minor tweaks that would seem to me to be definite improvements: 1. Whitehill should be unified in the cross-border seat. That means East Hampshire needs an orphan ward from another district. Odiham from Hart ward isn't a great fit, but it does allow improvements to other seats. 2. Eliminate the ward split of Oakley & the Candovers and put it all into NW Hampshire. 3. Basingstoke then gains the ward of Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown, uniting the urban area, and Bramley (solely for numbers reasons.) 4. NE Hampshire loses Odiham and Bramley, but gains Chineham and Yateley East. Looks a bit ugly, but it means Yateley is no longer split. 5. As others have suggested, swap Egham for Englefield Green and Virginia Water 6. Put South Park and Woodhatch back into Reigate and Leatherhead back into Dorking. Make the numbers work by moving Box Hill & Headley into Epsom & Ewell. Alternatively, you can give East Hampshire a ward from Winchester district, put the orphan ward from Hedge End into Winchester, keep Odiham in NE Hampshire but maintain the split of Yateley. That looks neater, so might be an easier sell to the BCE, but it's a question of whether you're more bothered by town splits or neat-looking seats. You're not uniting Basingstoke if you take out Chineham though, it is a peripheral estate, but a lot closer than Bramley is. Yes, but you can't fit Chineham in with the rest of Basingstoke, because it's slightly over the maximum electorate size. And Chineham is separated from Basingstoke proper by a dual carriageway, whereas Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown has areas which fade naturally into Popley. Bramley is peripheral, I agree, but that's just a numbers thing - if it were possible to take Chineham instead (perhaps by splitting Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown?) that would obviously be superior.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 21, 2021 9:08:41 GMT
I don't see what's so wrong with the BCE's version of Basingstoke that so desperately needs remedying.
Actually I thought that Hants was one of the BCE's best efforts and I don't think I'd change anything, with the possible exception of switching Headley into E Hants so as to unite Whitehill; and I'm not really sold even on that.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 21, 2021 10:44:37 GMT
I don't see what's so wrong with the BCE's version of Basingstoke that so desperately needs remedying. Actually I thought that Hants was one of the BCE's best efforts and I don't think I'd change anything, with the possible exception of switching Headley into E Hants so as to unite Whitehill; and I'm not really sold even on that.
1. Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown is left out and the southern part of that ward seems to me to be fairly integral to the seat. 2. Oakley and the Candovers ward is split. I'm not necessarily opposed to a ward split on principle, but if you're going to do it then surely it makes sense to add bits of Basingstoke to the Basingstoke seat rather than some villages about 5 miles away?
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 21, 2021 10:49:06 GMT
You're not uniting Basingstoke if you take out Chineham though, it is a peripheral estate, but a lot closer than Bramley is. Yes, but you can't fit Chineham in with the rest of Basingstoke, because it's slightly over the maximum electorate size. And Chineham is separated from Basingstoke proper by a dual carriageway, whereas Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown has areas which fade naturally into Popley. Bramley is peripheral, I agree, but that's just a numbers thing - if it were possible to take Chineham instead (perhaps by splitting Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown?) that would obviously be superior. Sherborne and Rooksdown are pretty close to Basingstoke, yes, so I wouldn't split that. Maybe kick the Manydown/Worting parts of Manydown and Winklebury out of Bstoke and Bramley, in exchange for Chineham if that would work?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 21, 2021 10:57:14 GMT
You would need to remove very much - Brighton Hill; Hatch Warren & Beggarwood; Kempshott & Buckskin; South Ham; Brookvale & Kings Furlong; Eastrop & Grove; Norden; Popley; Chineham; Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown; and Winklebury & Manydown has a total electorate of 78231, so that's 1169 electors you'd need to lose.
Either of the latter two wards could feasibly be divided upon the line of the current parliamentary boundary or thereabouts, I'd suspect - with which one you choose primarily being a question of how to wrap NE and NW Hampshire around the Basingstoke seat.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 21, 2021 11:00:07 GMT
You would need to remove very much - Brighton Hill; Hatch Warren & Beggarwood; Kempshott & Buckskin; South Ham; Brookvale & Kings Furlong; Eastrop & Grove; Norden; Popley; Chineham; Sherborne St. John and Rooksdown; and Winklebury & Manydown has a total electorate of 78231, so that's 1169 electors you'd need to lose. Either of the latter two wards could feasibly be divided upon the line of the current parliamentary boundary or thereabouts, I'd suspect - with which one you choose primarily being a question of how to wrap NE and NW Hampshire around the Basingstoke seat. Would taking the Worting/Manydown/Sherborne St John village polling districts be enough?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 21, 2021 11:07:33 GMT
I can't find definite information on what geographical areas particular Basingstoke & Deane polling districts pertain to, but Wikipedia suggests that Wootton St Lawrence parish (covering the Manydown area and a bit further afield) had only 636 residents at the 2011 census, so removing it would still make Basingstoke too big. Sherborne St. John civil parish had about 3500 residents at the same census, so would probably work (though it might have to go in NE rather than NW Hampshire, with NW taking the entirety of Oakleys and Candover ward.
Hopefully somebody else can improve on my back of an envelope calculations.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 2, 2021 8:36:23 GMT
Assuming we want to respect the Surrey-Berks border (see plans upthread), then here's a plan for the Surrey / Hants part of the equation.
This owes a lot to the plan by aidanthomson but I prefer this version of Reigate, even though it means that the Dorking seat has to borrow a ward from Guildford (or conceivably Waverley). I've also tweaked boundaries in E Hants to keep Whitehill together; I agree the result looks messy but there are road links and it avoids any knock-on consequences in the rest of Hants.
Everything else in Surrey and Hants as per the BCE scheme (shown in blue).
I'm seriously thinking of submitting this.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 3, 2021 22:53:34 GMT
Looking at the notional results on Electoral Calculus (even though they should be taken with a pinch of salt), the arrangements for Reading and the surrounding area are more like a gerrymander than anything else, given that they create one safe Labour seat with significant change to existing seats, a safe Conservative seat from a marginal Conservative seat (Mid Berkshire can be considered the successor to Reading West) and a safe new Conservative seat with considerable parts of Reading East. Better is Reading North West (comprising the majority of Reading UA) and Reading South East (more sensibly drawn than Earley & Woodley and resulting in less change to the Maidenhead constituency).
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 3, 2021 23:27:54 GMT
Looking at the notional results on Electoral Calculus (even though they should be taken with a pinch of salt), the arrangements for Reading and the surrounding area are more like a gerrymander than anything else, given that they create one safe Labour seat with significant change to existing seats, a safe Conservative seat from a marginal Conservative seat (Mid Berkshire can be considered the successor to Reading West) and a safe new Conservative seat with considerable parts of Reading East. Better is Reading North West (comprising the majority of Reading UA) and Reading South East (more sensibly drawn than Earley & Woodley and resulting in less change to the Maidenhead constituency). Earley and Woodley is not a safe new Tory seat. Electoral Calculus is a terrible estimator of seat outcomes. It contains 5 safe or strong Labour wards (Whitley, Church, Shinfield North, Bulmershe and Whitegates and Maiden Erleigh), both at local and general election level. The other wards produced the vast majority of the LD vote in Wokingham in 2019. Which wards would your Reading NW and Reading SE contain? Mid Berks will probably be safe Tory yes, but the wards taken out of Newbury make that seat a much better target for the LDs.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jul 4, 2021 2:38:54 GMT
Looking at the notional results on Electoral Calculus (even though they should be taken with a pinch of salt), the arrangements for Reading and the surrounding area are more like a gerrymander than anything else, given that they create one safe Labour seat with significant change to existing seats, a safe Conservative seat from a marginal Conservative seat (Mid Berkshire can be considered the successor to Reading West) and a safe new Conservative seat with considerable parts of Reading East. Better is Reading North West (comprising the majority of Reading UA) and Reading South East (more sensibly drawn than Earley & Woodley and resulting in less change to the Maidenhead constituency). Earley and Woodley is not a safe new Tory seat. Electoral Calculus is a terrible estimator of seat outcomes. It contains 5 safe or strong Labour wards (Whitley, Church, Shinfield North, Bulmershe and Whitegates and Maiden Erleigh), both at local and general election level. The other wards produced the vast majority of the LD vote in Wokingham in 2019. Which wards would your Reading NW and Reading SE contain? Mid Berks will probably be safe Tory yes, but the wards taken out of Newbury make that seat a much better target for the LDs. I don't think its accurate to describe Shinfield North or Bulmershe & Whitegates as 'Strong Labour', they're swing wards. Maiden Erleigh is more Tory than these and would only go Labour in a very good year - hardly the definition of 'strong Labour'. I agree that 'Safe Tory' is probably not the best description for this 'Earley & Woodley' but it is a seat where they'd have a very clear advantage against a fairly split opposition, though future trends could make it more vulnerable. The most likely chance of them losing in the short term IMO would be the Lib Dems beating Labour into second and heavily squeezing their vote in the subsequent election.
|
|