Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 2, 2021 23:40:40 GMT
Totally messed up a final attempt at the new Bucks divisions over the past week, which has had the knock-on effect of making my ideas for Berkshire and Hampshire nonsensical too.
I did think 'perhaps I should have at least sent off my maps as well as the spreadsheet?' but then, to give you an idea of my level of lack of preparation, I realised I'd never even taken a Boundary Assistant screenshot of Sussex during this review. And that's a county where actually voted in a general election not so long ago, folks.
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Nov 2, 2021 8:58:09 GMT
Recently, I've been rethinking over the proposed boundaries for Oxfordshire, and whilst I can't see that much will change with the 'revised proposals', there is a tiny bit of room for making them (in my opinion) slightly better:
- Move Sandford and the Wittenhams to Henley (if you really wanted to, you could split the ward to keep the Wittenhams in Wantage and Didcot; this wouldn't affect quota) - Add Forest Hill and Holton, and Charlbury and Finstock to the Bicester seat - Give Eynsham and Cassington back to Witney; numerically, you could also return North Leigh to Witney - Milton-under-Wychwood, and Ascott and Shipton can go into Banbury - Then Kingston Bagpuize goes with Wantage and Didcot
Then, this minimises the number of Vale wards that have to be paired with Witney, concentrating them mainly to those that share a border with the seat already. It also keeps Eynsham in Witney, which, its removal, was perhaps one of the worst parts of the initial proposals.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by ricmk on Feb 8, 2022 13:21:05 GMT
I've scanned through some of the official responses to the South East proposals this lunchtime and a few thoughts:
1) Looks like everyone is broadly happy with Oxfordshire. 2) MK and Bucks - the awful MK names should be fixed but looks like all sides are happier than I expected with the MK boundaries. Main argument seems to be tinkering over Chesham and Amersham boundaries with both the Lib Dems / Tories trying to get helpful wards in there. 3) Several counter-proposals around Chatham, Maidstone, Weald of Kent. Don't know it well enough to know the political context. 4) Windsor and Egham gets more support than I expected, probably with that name change if it goes through. 5) Labour are going there, with Tadley and wotsit as a cross-border Berks-Hants seat. Silchester lives! I think this is all about preserving the Reading seats and it's Labour's only substantive counter-proposal in the whole South East. 6) Lib Dems also have a big counterproposal for Hampshire and beyond, which seems to be about preserving Winchester as much as anything, with an eye on Newbury and Mid Berkshire. 7) Lib Dems also try to keep something like the current Lewes seat, but all others seem happier with the initial proposals. 8) Everyone has different counter-proposals for the Isle of Wight but no one likes the initial proposals. 9) The Greens seem bizarrely fixed on crossing the South Downs as the biggest issue in the region.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 8, 2022 13:40:27 GMT
Lots of Vectians want one MP, and one wants a single constituency with 2 MPs.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 8, 2022 15:25:05 GMT
I've scanned through some of the official responses to the South East proposals this lunchtime and a few thoughts: 1) Looks like everyone is broadly happy with Oxfordshire.
It's one of the least bad areas of the region, given that five LAs and seven seats was never going to be particularly pretty.
I still thing it can probably be improved, mind. Two LAs are split three ways and three are split two ways. I reckon we can get that down to one/four, which would be an improvement.
Two seats in the county are contained within a single LA and I'd like to find a way to increase that to three or possibly even four.
It's obvious from the responses that few people seem to care about administrative neatness, mind. And why would they, when there are wholly partisan objectives to be pursued...
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 8, 2022 15:55:56 GMT
I've scanned through some of the official responses to the South East proposals this lunchtime and a few thoughts: 1) Looks like everyone is broadly happy with Oxfordshire.
It's one of the least bad areas of the region, given that five LAs and seven seats was never going to be particularly pretty.
I still thing it can probably be improved, mind. Two LAs are split three ways and three are split two ways. I reckon we can get that down to one/four, which would be an improvement.
Two seats in the county are contained within a single LA and I'd like to find a way to increase that to three or possibly even four.
It's obvious from the responses that few people seem to care about administrative neatness, mind. And why would they, when there are wholly partisan objectives to be pursued...
And why does administrative neatness matter? To whom does it matter? And why does connectivity matter or position of roads and rivers? This is entirely about equality of voting size and average voter comfort.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 8, 2022 19:15:50 GMT
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 568
|
Post by nyx on Feb 8, 2022 20:36:50 GMT
I've scanned through some of the official responses to the South East proposals this lunchtime and a few thoughts: 8) Everyone has different counter-proposals for the Isle of Wight but no one likes the initial proposals. I only scanned through maybe ten of the Isle of Wight proposals but it looked like the majority of the proposed exact new maps (and the Conservatives) proposed the same thing I did. Simply switching three wards from east to west and three from west to east, getting rid of the proposed horrific partition of Newport. Honestly not sure why the Boundary Commission didn't just propose this in the first place given how obvious it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2022 16:53:16 GMT
I've scanned through some of the official responses to the South East proposals this lunchtime and a few thoughts: 8) Everyone has different counter-proposals for the Isle of Wight but no one likes the initial proposals. I only scanned through maybe ten of the Isle of Wight proposals but it looked like the majority of the proposed exact new maps (and the Conservatives) proposed the same thing I did. Simply switching three wards from east to west and three from west to east, getting rid of the proposed horrific partition of Newport. Honestly not sure why the Boundary Commission didn't just propose this in the first place given how obvious it is. Maybe they like trolling people? Must be a boring job at times, after all.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 17, 2022 18:35:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 17, 2022 19:23:27 GMT
I think it is pretty much ward for ward my plan in the Hampshire/Berkshire area - I still think it has a lot of merit (don't care for that name much though). I wonder if the person frequents this site?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 18, 2022 7:57:03 GMT
I think it is pretty much ward for ward my plan in the Hampshire/Berkshire area - I still think it has a lot of merit (don't care for that name much though). I wonder if the person frequents this site? So what you need to do now is to make a second round submission supporting that proposal but suggesting instead the name "Silchester".
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 18, 2022 11:53:12 GMT
I only scanned through maybe ten of the Isle of Wight proposals but it looked like the majority of the proposed exact new maps (and the Conservatives) proposed the same thing I did. Simply switching three wards from east to west and three from west to east, getting rid of the proposed horrific partition of Newport. Honestly not sure why the Boundary Commission didn't just propose this in the first place given how obvious it is. Maybe they like trolling people? Must be a boring job at times, after all. I agree it's 100% the best plan, but didn't the BCE propose this, or something very similar, at one of the zombies only to get absolutely slaughtered in the public responses?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 18, 2022 13:13:10 GMT
Buckinghamshire pitchfork watch:
- Lots of fuming about the split of Beaconsfield. Ideas for dealing with the problem are limited, though. Some suggest moving Gerrards Cross instead, though if they mean Gerrards Cross ward that, um, splits Beaconsfield too, just the other way round. Also Gerrards Cross also has part of the town outside the eponymous ward (in Denham ward).
- Lots of people in Great Missenden and, especially, the part of Chiltern Ridges ward the BCE move, don't like being moved from Chesham & Amersham to Princes Risborough.
- In general, the new Princes Risborough seat doesn't seem very popular, I suspect because the town isn't really regarded as a major centre. Maybe "West Buckinghamshire" would have been a better choice of name, though they like the BCE's name in Princes Risborough...
- An interestingly large number of comments complaining about the retention of the existing boundary between Marlow proper and Marlow Bottom.
- A reasonable number of comments from Hazlemere opposing being separated from High Wycombe.
- A Tory councillor objecting to part of the Tory proposal, specifically their proposal to move Tylers Green & Loudwater from Wycombe to Chesham & Amersham. (Ref. 75101)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 18, 2022 14:05:35 GMT
Buckinghamshire pitchfork watch: - Lots of fuming about the split of Beaconsfield. Ideas for dealing with the problem are limited, though. Some suggest moving Gerrards Cross instead, though if they mean Gerrards Cross ward that, um, splits Beaconsfield too, just the other way round. Also Gerrards Cross also has part of the town outside the eponymous ward (in Denham ward). The boundary between Beaconsfield and C&A can stay where it is.- Lots of people in Great Missenden and, especially, the part of Chiltern Ridges ward the BCE move, don't like being moved from Chesham & Amersham to Princes Risborough. C&A can be kept unchanged.- In general, the new Princes Risborough seat doesn't seem very popular, I suspect because the town isn't really regarded as a major centre. Maybe "West Buckinghamshire" would have been a better choice of name, though they like the BCE's name in Princes Risborough... A seat like this is unavoidable but my version would be called 'Mid Bucks'. Whether the locals would find this an improvement is anyone's guess.- An interestingly large number of comments complaining about the retention of the existing boundary between Marlow proper and Marlow Bottom. Sorry, I can't help with this one. It's a legitimate point, though.- A reasonable number of comments from Hazlemere opposing being separated from High Wycombe. Again, I can't help with this, unless they find being put in Mid Buck's preferable to the BCE suggestion of C&A.- A Tory councillor objecting to part of the Tory proposal, specifically their proposal to move Tylers Green & Loudwater from Wycombe to Chesham & Amersham. (Ref. 75101) Yes.Well, this is the point of my submission in this area. Linking Marlow to Maidenhead allows an approach to Bucks that resolves many (not all) of these issues, as noted above in red.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 18, 2022 15:53:21 GMT
Buckinghamshire pitchfork watch: - Lots of fuming about the split of Beaconsfield. Ideas for dealing with the problem are limited, though. Some suggest moving Gerrards Cross instead, though if they mean Gerrards Cross ward that, um, splits Beaconsfield too, just the other way round. Also Gerrards Cross also has part of the town outside the eponymous ward (in Denham ward). The boundary between Beaconsfield and C&A can stay where it is.- Lots of people in Great Missenden and, especially, the part of Chiltern Ridges ward the BCE move, don't like being moved from Chesham & Amersham to Princes Risborough. C&A can be kept unchanged.- In general, the new Princes Risborough seat doesn't seem very popular, I suspect because the town isn't really regarded as a major centre. Maybe "West Buckinghamshire" would have been a better choice of name, though they like the BCE's name in Princes Risborough... A seat like this is unavoidable but my version would be called 'Mid Bucks'. Whether the locals would find this an improvement is anyone's guess.- An interestingly large number of comments complaining about the retention of the existing boundary between Marlow proper and Marlow Bottom. Sorry, I can't help with this one. It's a legitimate point, though.- A reasonable number of comments from Hazlemere opposing being separated from High Wycombe. Again, I can't help with this, unless they find being put in Mid Buck's preferable to the BCE suggestion of C&A.- A Tory councillor objecting to part of the Tory proposal, specifically their proposal to move Tylers Green & Loudwater from Wycombe to Chesham & Amersham. (Ref. 75101) Yes.Well, this is the point of my submission in this area. Linking Marlow to Maidenhead allows an approach to Bucks that resolves many (not all) of these issues, as noted above in red. Couldn't you swap The Wooburns et al with Chiltern Villages in your plan to get Marlow Bottom in with Marlow? Not that that would be entirely without issues of its own, but I think you could make a case that the former is a better fit in the (High) Wycombe constituency than the mostly very rural (apart from Marlow Bottom) Chiltern Villages ward. I'm currently drafting a second round submission which will suggest splitting two wards (but unsplitting Chiltern Ridges) to deal with most of the problems above, except for Great Missenden and the rough shape of the new constituency. Split Gerrards Cross ward to reunite Beaconsfield, and split Chiltern Villages both to get Marlow & South Buckinghamshire back up to quota and to reunite Marlow Bottom with Marlow. The rest of Chiltern Villages goes into Princes Risborough/West Bucks and both Hazlemere and Tylers Green & Loudwater can stay in High Wycombe. Aside: Isn't "Chiltern Villages" a daft name for a Buckinghamshire ward? The county is full of Chiltern villages; why does that ward deserve the name?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 18, 2022 16:29:37 GMT
If you want to do a Berks-Bucks seat, I think you have to seize the pitchfork by the head and put Stoke Poges & Wexham in with Slough. This lets Windsor gain Langley St Mary's (reuniting Langley and avoiding the need to cross into Surrey) and means that Beaconsfield can otherwise stay unchanged (as can Chesham & Amersham.) Wycombe is then as the BCE has it, Princes Risborough gains Hazlemere and Great Brickhill and in MK you chuck the centre in with Bletchley.
Plus it would really annoy the residents of South Buckinghamshire, and that has to count for something.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 18, 2022 17:46:32 GMT
Well, this is the point of my submission in this area. Linking Marlow to Maidenhead allows an approach to Bucks that resolves many (not all) of these issues, as noted above in red. Couldn't you swap The Wooburns et al with Chiltern Villages in your plan to get Marlow Bottom in with Marlow? Not that that would be entirely without issues of its own, but I think you could make a case that the former is a better fit in the (High) Wycombe constituency than the mostly very rural (apart from Marlow Bottom) Chiltern Villages ward. I'm currently drafting a second round submission which will suggest splitting two wards (but unsplitting Chiltern Ridges) to deal with most of the problems above, except for Great Missenden and the rough shape of the new constituency. Split Gerrards Cross ward to reunite Beaconsfield, and split Chiltern Villages both to get Marlow & South Buckinghamshire back up to quota and to reunite Marlow Bottom with Marlow. The rest of Chiltern Villages goes into Princes Risborough/West Bucks and both Hazlemere and Tylers Green & Loudwater can stay in High Wycombe. Aside: Isn't "Chiltern Villages" a daft name for a Buckinghamshire ward? The county is full of Chiltern villages; why does that ward deserve the name? I am hugely impressed by the suggestion in bold because for all the time I have spent poring over maps in this area it is a configuration that never crossed my mind. Nevertheless I am not going to adopt it because it spoils the compact nature of my proposed Maidenhead/Marlow seat; also because it removes Bourne End, a key transport link between Maidenhead and Marlow.
Edited to add: On a further reading, the above comes across a rather a brusque dismissal and it wasn't intended as such. It's just that the proposed Maidenhead/Marlow pairing is a complete innovation and to have the best chance of success it needs to have everything possible going for it, including its compactness and the inclusion of Bourne End, which in travel term is something of a hinge linking the two main towns. There's also the more technical point that although the proposed change would unite Marlow Bottom with Marlow, it would also sever the Well End area from Bourne End. But it was a really creative idea and one that hadn't occurred to me, so I'm grateful to YL for suggesting it.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 18, 2022 18:44:32 GMT
If you want to do a Berks-Bucks seat, I think you have to seize the pitchfork by the head and put Stoke Poges & Wexham in with Slough. This lets Windsor gain Langley St Mary's (reuniting Langley and avoiding the need to cross into Surrey) and means that Beaconsfield can otherwise stay unchanged (as can Chesham & Amersham.) Wycombe is then as the BCE has it, Princes Risborough gains Hazlemere and Great Brickhill and in MK you chuck the centre in with Bletchley. Plus it would really annoy the residents of South Buckinghamshire, and that has to count for something. An ex colleague lived in Stoke Poges, her boss used to call it North Slough just to annoy her. Hell would freeze over sooner than Stoke Poges residents allowing themselves to be thrown in with Slough, though I think the knock on benefits are very good.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 568
|
Post by nyx on Feb 19, 2022 0:04:05 GMT
It would doubtless horrify locals but I have to say I would find a map like this, with a Slough North and a Slough South, rather aesthetically pleasing.
|
|