|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 9, 2021 18:24:32 GMT
It is incredibly irritating that Bracknell and Wokingham towns are (just) discontiguous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 9, 2021 22:31:25 GMT
Alternatively, minimum change to Newbury and make the link in the middle of the county  The rest of Hampshire falls into place quite easily with that (It splits Yateley but I can live with that). Lots of unchanged seats here - both New Forests, both Southamptons, both Portsmouths, Gosport, Havant and East Hampshire. Fairly minimal change all round really, all things considered  |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,630 
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Jan 9, 2021 23:57:34 GMT
Now that the SE is on Boundary assistant I've had a look at Milton Keynes, out of self-interest. This will be the third controversial review here; stuck on the edge of the SE region having split from Bucks in 1997 we are reluctant to be stuck back with them. But no other option, and at least people have been softened up that this is likely to happen, over the past 2 reviews. I suspect the Tories will submit the proposal by Pete Whitehead on the first page of this thread. I can't see it flying though. The North seat is fine, the central seat ignores all community identity, and connecting Bletchley to Buckingham caused such an uproar in the 2013 Zombie review that I suspect the Boundary Commission haven't forgotten. Even the sensible proposal (of picking the bits actually connected to Buckingham) last time became a significant electoral issue. MK is due 2.57 seats this year, so the split seat will have a larger component in MK (and we are clearly heading to 3 seats in due course so this will be a bridge.) Here is my gut feel for what I think should happen in MK, simply trying to come up with the most natural seats:  However this is probably as good as it would get for Labour - the compact MK South seat loses the Tory strongholds and I'd make Labour clear favourites. MK East solidly Tory. Although 10 Tory cllrs / 10 Lib Dem councillors so possible we could get second if the national mood turned. The split seat, well I reckon Labour would edge the MK parts, and get solidly outvoted by Buckingham. So this could be a useful insurance for the Tories, they would be likely to hold onto 2 MK seats on these boundaries, even if a severe turn against them. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2021 12:31:27 GMT
You can almost get 9 reasonable seats out of Berkshire, but every vaguely sensible combination I've found falls just short in at least one seat. However, if you combine Slough with bits of Buckinghamshire that are effectively part of the town, you can get this interesting map:  Newbury (72016) - loses Basildon, Bucklebury and Ridgeway Reading West (70172) - loses Battle, Kentwood, Norcot and Priory from Reading; gains Aldermaston, Basildon, Bradfield, Bucklebury, Burghfield & Mortimer and Ridgeway in West Berkshire Reading Central (72459) - successor to Reading East, loses Church, Park and the Woodley wards; gains Battle, Kentwood, Norcot and Priory Reading East (70818) - new seat, name notwithstanding. Church and Park from Reading; from Wokingham district the five Woodley wards, the three Earley wards, the two Shinfield wards and Swallowfield Wokingham (70224) - loses its bits of West Berkshire, Earley, Shinfield and Swallowfield; gains Wokingham without, the two Finchampstead wards and the four Sandhurst wards from Bracknell Forest Bracknell (70509) - loses the four Sandhurst wards; gains Ascot (just the Bracknell ward, not the W&M ones), Binfield & Warfield, Warfield Harvest Ride and Winkfield & Cranbourne Maidenhead (70743) - loses Coronation and Sonning wards Windsor & Langley (76450) - loses the Bracknell Forest wards, gains Foxborough, Langley Kedermister, Langley St Mary's and Upton Slough (73281) - loses four wards to Windsor & Langley, gains the two wards covering Burnham Beaconsfield (71049) - loses the two Burnham wards, gains Greater Marlow Chesham & Amersham (73015) - unchanged Wycombe (74658) - loses Greater Marlow Mid Buckinghamshire (70880) - successor to Buckingham, loses Buckingham, Great Horwood, Luffield Abbey; Tingewick and Winslow; gains Bledlow & Bradenham, Greater Hughenden, Lacey Green etc. and Stokenchurch and Radnage Aylesbury (75127) - loses Bledlow & Bradenham, Greater Hughenden, Lacey Green etc. and Stokenchurch and Radnage Milton Keynes East & Buckingham (70101) - new seat. From Bucks, Buckingham, Great Horwood, Luffield Abbey; Tingewick and Winslow; from MK Bradwell, Loughton & Shenley, Stony Stratford, Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe Milton Keynes South (70184) - relative to realigned boundaries, loses Loughton & Shenley, Monkston, Stony Stratford, Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe; gains Campbell Park & Old Woughton and Central Milton Keynes Milton Keynes North (70538) - loses Bradwell, Campbell Park & Old Woughton and Central Milton Keynes; gains Monkston In partisan terms, both Reading Central and Milton Keynes South look very good for Labour, but at the cost of their competitiveness in the other seats in the conurbation. Slough remains a Labour fortress, the bits going in with Windsor aren't anywhere near Labour enough to make it competitive and Wycombe gets a little closer. I have no idea if this would work with the new Buckinghamshire wards, but in Berkshire it's relatively easy to make small swaps and the numbers aren't too tight in Bucks. I'm not sure if Hampshire could stand alone under this scheme, or if it'd need to be paired with Surrey. |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Jan 10, 2021 14:30:24 GMT
I came up with the same Hampshire as Pete Whitehead, bar putting Chineham instead of Sherborne St John in the Basingstoke seat. It is annoying that Fareham and Gosport are just too much for 2 seats as that would allow for less change in the south of the county. I came up with a different Berkshire. The 5 eastern boroughs can combine for 7 seats exactly, leaving West Berks to go in with Hants. This means Reading can get a whole seat while Wokingham borough is split 3 ways instead of 4: |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2021 14:35:47 GMT
Minimum change approach to Kent:  North Thanet (74365) - gains Sturry from Canterbury, loses Margate Central South Thanet (75453) - gains Margate Central Canterbury (74365) - loses Sturry Dover (75855) - unchanged Folkestone & Hythe (70023) - once you've pulled out of Ashford, there isn't room to remove the Romney Marsh wards. So it loses North Down East and North Down West instead Ashford (75342) - gains Bircholt, North Down East and North Down West, loses almost all the rural bits of Ashford district. Tempted to rename it Ashford and Chunnel Mid Kent (73705) - the largest number of electors come from Ashford, but this would probably be counted as the successor to Faversham & Mid Kent (which is sliced four ways, with none of those parts being the largest contributor to the new seat.) The rural bits of Ashford district, two wards from Maidstone, Faversham and as much as I could take from Swale without going into Sittingbourne itself Sittingbourne & Sheppey (72005) - loses Hartlip etc., Teynham & Lynsted and West Downs Rochester & Strood (75521) - loses River Gillingham & Rainham (73951) - unchanged Chatham (73454) - loses Aylesford South, Ditton, Larkfield North and Larkfield South, gains Boxley, Delting & Thurnham and River Maidstone (74076) - loses 'The Weald' bits of its predecessor, gains Bearsted, Downswood & Otham, Park Wood, Shepway North and Shepway South Aylesford & The Weald (69879) - new seat. Blatantly just a leftovers seat and I'm half-tempted to split Maidstone in half along the Medway just to make it look less awkward Tunbridge Wells (75213) - unchanged Tonbridge (71018) - loses East Malling, Kings Hill, Wateringbury and West Malling & Leybourne (and hence half the name.) Gains Brasted etc. and Westerham & Crockham Hill Sevenoaks (76284) - loses Brasted etc. and Westerham & Crockham Hill. Gains Hartley & Hodsoll Street, Darenth and Longfield etc. Gravesham (72866) - unchanged Dartford (70521) - loses Darenth and Longfield etc. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 10, 2021 14:57:38 GMT
As for redrawing Oxfordshire's constituencies, I ended up with "Oxford North" and "Oxford South & Henley" (clear gerrymandering if ever I saw it!) for want of a better plan that would meet quota requirements and which would create fair constituencies in North Oxfordshire (since it is obvious how they need to be redrawn).
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 10, 2021 15:43:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2021 16:07:34 GMT
My take on Sussex:  Hasting 75881 Bexhill & Battle 73698 Eastbourne 73322 Wealden 75331 Mid Sussex 75015 - slightly more of the district is actually in with Burgess Hill, but I didn't want to include all 3 towns in the name and this at least marks it as the cross-county seat Lewes 76479 Brighton Kemptown 70363 - minimum change option. You could also swap Hanover & Elm Grove for Moulsecoomb & Bevendean if you wanted a neater boundary Brighton Pavilion 76854 - unchanged Hove 73726 - unchanged Worthing East & Shoreham 72942 - I don't like the orphan ward, but I needed it to keep Worthing West out of the Littlehampton urban area Worthing West 76151 Littlehampton 72363 Bognor Regis 74808 - ugly boundary need to stay contiguous by road Chichester 76316 In general, the further you get away from the coast, the less happy I am with this. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 10, 2021 16:29:01 GMT
Here's my Oxfordshire plan mapped.  1. Banbury 2. Bicester & Thame 3. Witney 4. Oxford West & Abingdon 5. Oxford East (number not on map) 6. Wantage 7. Henley |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 10, 2021 17:46:22 GMT
Oxfordshire. On the plus side, Henley, the two Oxfords, and Wantage are close to minimal change. On the flip side, I've done something awful to Witney:  1 Banbury 70313 Yes 2 Bicester 73443 Yes 3 Witney 72001 Yes 4 Wantage 71539 Yes 5 Henley 70626 Yes 6 Oxford West and Abingdon 69955 Yes 7 Oxford East 71854 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jan 10, 2021 18:04:10 GMT
Oxfordshire. On the plus side, Henley, the two Oxfords, and Wantage are close to minimal change. On the flip side, I've done something awful to Witney: 1 Banbury 70313 Yes 2 Bicester 73443 Yes 3 Witney 72001 Yes 4 Wantage 71539 Yes 5 Henley 70626 Yes 6 Oxford West and Abingdon 69955 Yes 7 Oxford East 71854 Yes Is it possible swap Hinksey Park and Holywell without Oxford West and Abingdon being pushed under quota? It probably looks worse on the map, but keeping Carfax & Jericho and Holywell (ideally Osney & St Thomas too) in the same seat means you avoid splitting Oxford city centre. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2021 18:21:23 GMT
Oxfordshire. On the plus side, Henley, the two Oxfords, and Wantage are close to minimal change. On the flip side, I've done something awful to Witney: 1 Banbury 70313 Yes 2 Bicester 73443 Yes 3 Witney 72001 Yes 4 Wantage 71539 Yes 5 Henley 70626 Yes 6 Oxford West and Abingdon 69955 Yes 7 Oxford East 71854 Yes Is it possible swap Hinksey Park and Holywell without Oxford West and Abingdon being pushed under quota? It probably looks worse on the map, but keeping Carfax & Jericho and Holywell (ideally Osney & St Thomas too) in the same seat means you avoid splitting Oxford city centre. It doesn't work as a direct swap, but you could move Charlbury from Bicester into Witney, Kingston Bagpuize into Wantage and Marcham into OxWAb, which would give you the space to make that swap? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 10, 2021 18:52:48 GMT
Oxfordshire. On the plus side, Henley, the two Oxfords, and Wantage are close to minimal change. On the flip side, I've done something awful to Witney: 1 Banbury 70313 Yes 2 Bicester 73443 Yes 3 Witney 72001 Yes 4 Wantage 71539 Yes 5 Henley 70626 Yes 6 Oxford West and Abingdon 69955 Yes 7 Oxford East 71854 Yes Is it possible swap Hinksey Park and Holywell without Oxford West and Abingdon being pushed under quota? It probably looks worse on the map, but keeping Carfax & Jericho and Holywell (ideally Osney & St Thomas too) in the same seat means you avoid splitting Oxford city centre. Annoyingly, that puts Oxford West and Abingdon under by 286. Of course, if we were starting from scratch, it would really be a stupid idea putting the boundary-crossing constituency at the western side of such an east-heavy city. It may have been a nice bipartisan gerrymander once – Labour get Oxford East unless their leader's Michael Foot, and our nice dons in North Oxford can join other nice people in Abingdon (until they turned into Europhiles). But really, it would make more sense to put those wards in the east of the city that are ambiguously urban enough to be at least partially covered by parish councils into a rural constituency and have the core of the original Oxford constituency all in one constituency:  1 Oxford 71118 Yes 2 Bullingdon 72095 Yes 3 Henley 72747 Yes 4 Abingdon 69923 Yes 5 Witney 70092 Yes 6 Bicester 70389 Yes 7 Banbury 73367 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jan 10, 2021 19:11:27 GMT
Is it possible swap Hinksey Park and Holywell without Oxford West and Abingdon being pushed under quota? It probably looks worse on the map, but keeping Carfax & Jericho and Holywell (ideally Osney & St Thomas too) in the same seat means you avoid splitting Oxford city centre. Annoyingly, that puts Oxford West and Abingdon under by 286. Of course, if we were starting from scratch, it would really be a stupid idea putting the boundary-crossing constituency at the western side of such an east-heavy city. It may have been a nice bipartisan gerrymander once – Labour get Oxford East unless their leader's Michael Foot, and our nice dons in North Oxford can join other nice people in Abingdon (until they turned into Europhiles). But really, it would make more sense to put those wards in the east of the city that are ambiguously urban enough to be at least partially covered by parish councils into a rural constituency and have the core of the original Oxford constituency all in one constituency: 1 Oxford 71118 Yes 2 Bullingdon 72095 Yes 3 Henley 72747 Yes 4 Abingdon 69923 Yes 5 Witney 70092 Yes 6 Bicester 70389 Yes 7 Banbury 73367 Yes I'm not sure you could describe Blackbird Leys as "ambiguously urban" - it does have a parish council but it's completely different in character to any of its surrounding rural areas. Littlemore is a bit more like a village in character, but extends right into the centre of Cowley which is clearly urban (a fair amount of Littlemore ward isn't in the parish). If you really want to take a chunk out of east Oxford, then it probably needs to be the northern part - Headington is similar to Summertown in that it's basically suburban in character rather than urban, and so pairing it with more rural parts of Oxfordshire isn't quite so jarring. A constituency comprised of Headington, Bicester, and Thame might be a reasonable option, but that isn't compatible with the Bicester seat you've drawn here (which I actually really like - Bicester/Kidlington/Woodstock is a fairly sensible combination). |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 10, 2021 19:42:11 GMT
It is possible to avoid crossing the boundary of the River Thames between the Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire:
1. Witney (70,276). Loses northernmost wards and also Woodstock.
2. Banbury (72,008). Loses Bicester, gains area around Chipping Norton as the old Banbury constituency used to.
3. Bicester & Thame (72,867). New seat. Gains Bicester from Banbury, area around Thame from Henley, Kidlington from Oxford West & Abingdon, and Woodstock from Witney.
4. Oxford East (71,854). Loses area around Carfax, Jericho and Osney.
5. Oxford West & Abingdon (69,955). Loses Kidlington and western villages in Vale of White Horse, gains area around Carfax, Jericho and Osney in the city of Oxford.
6. Henley (70,233). Loses area around Thame, gains area around Wallingford.
7. Wantage & Didcot (72,538). Succeeds Wantage. Loses area around Wallingford, gains western villages of Oxford West & Abingdon.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 10, 2021 22:24:36 GMT
Sussex. Finally found something reasonably nice, despite some nerk from the Local Government Commission having created messy new wards in Wealden.  1 Hastings and Rye 75581 Yes 2 Bexhill and Battle 76540 Yes 3 Eastbourne 73322 Yes 4 Hailsham 75876 Yes 5 Crowborough 76634 Yes 6 Lewes 76601 Yes 7 Brighton Kemptown 70363 Yes 8 Brighton Pavilion 76854 Yes 9 Hove 73726 Yes 10 Mid Sussex 71822 Yes 11 Crawley 74446 Yes 12 Horsham 72529 Yes 13 Worthing East and Shoreham 75466 Yes 14 Worthing West 76293 Yes 15 Arundel 71034 Yes 16 Bognor 75377 Yes 17 Chichester 70308 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 10, 2021 23:15:29 GMT
Adding Kingston to Kemptown is an obvious solution to avoid any further change in the three Brighton & Hove seats and I'm sure is what will happen. I just really wanted to avoid virtually doubling the size of the area represented by Lloyd Russell-Moyle - and for the sake of the area (which is lovely), not the voters (who are mostly fucking Lib Dems)
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 10, 2021 23:30:19 GMT
Adding Kingston to Kemptown is an obvious solution to avoid any further change in the three Brighton & Hove seats and I'm sure is what will happen. I just really wanted to avoid virtually doubling the size of the area represented by Lloyd Russell-Moyle - and for the sake of the area (which is lovely), not the voters (who are mostly fucking Lib Dems) Is that an adjective or a verb? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 10, 2021 23:35:58 GMT
Adding Kingston to Kemptown is an obvious solution to avoid any further change in the three Brighton & Hove seats and I'm sure is what will happen. I just really wanted to avoid virtually doubling the size of the area represented by Lloyd Russell-Moyle - and for the sake of the area (which is lovely), not the voters (who are mostly fucking Lib Dems) Is that an adjective or a verb? Well - you've got Lembit Opik, Nick Clegg, Paddy Pantsdown - going further back I guess Peter Bessell too (if you go back far enough, Lloyd-George, Lord Palmerston). So probably both |
|
