iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,451 
|
Post by iain on Jan 11, 2021 0:25:15 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) You could just swap Queen’s Park and Hanover & Elm Grove and then Kingston wouldn’t be needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 11, 2021 7:44:28 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) You could just swap Queen’s Park and Hanover & Elm Grove and then Kingston wouldn’t be needed. How did I not spot that? I need to start taking a bit more time and care |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 11, 2021 8:29:32 GMT
Kent  1. North Thanet (71,829) 2. South Thanet (71,986) 3. Canterbury (72,647) 4. Dover (75,855) 5. Folkestone & Hythe (74,784) 6. Ashford (69,765) 7. Sittingbourne & Sheppey (76,818) 8. Faversham & Mid Kent (73,214). I'll allow the "Mid" here as the "Faversham" anchors it. 9. Gillingham (73,951) 10. Chatham & Aylesford (74,561). 11. Rochester & Strood (75,521) 12. Gravesham (72,866) 13. Dartford (73,988) 14. Sevenoaks (72,817) 15. Tonbridge (72,656) 16. Maidstone (76,117). 17. Tunbridge Wells (75,757) 18. Tenterden (69,868) This is mostly fairly close to minimal change except for the rearrangement to give a mainly urban Maidstone and the new seat and its knock-on effects. I wasn't sure whether it was better to stick with the arrangement above or try to reunite Rochester and Chatham. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2021 8:56:47 GMT
Kent. Reasonably minimal change in a way that keeps East and West Malling in the same constituency as one another.  1 Dartford 75969 Yes (gives Hartley back to Sevenoaks and loses Ebbsfleet to Gravesend) 2 Sevenoaks 77015 Yes (takes Hartley back from Dartford) 3 Tonbridge 70782 Yes (loses the Mallings to Strood) 4 Gravesend 75076 Yes (takes Ebbsfleet from Dartford; Gravesend now spelt correctly) 5 Strood and Malling 75244 Yes (loses Rochester to Chatham, adds the Mallings from Tonbridge) 6 Rochester and Chatham 73489 Yes (successor to Chatham and Aylesford; loses Aylesford to Maidstone, adds Rochester) 7 Gillingham and Rainham 73951 Yes (unchanged) 8 Sittingbourne and Sheppey 72133 Yes (loses wards east/south of Sittingbourne to Faversham) 9 Faversham 72421 Yes (no longer crosses into Maidstone District (see Leeds); takes some wards from Sittingbourne and the coastal portion of Canterbury) 10 Maidstone and Aylesford 73001 Yes (loses its "and the Weald" wards (see Leeds) and takes Aylesford from Chatham instead) 11 Tunbridge Wells 75213 Yes (unchanged) 12 Ashford South and Romney 75369 Yes (successor to Ashford; loses northern half of Ashford to Canterbury, expands south to reduce Folkestone and Hythe) 13 Ashford North and Canterbury 73271 Yes (successor to Canterbury; loses coastal portion to Faversham; expands south to take northern half of Ashford) 14 Thanet North 71829 Yes (unchanged) 15 Thanet South 71986 Yes (unchanged apart from ward realignments) 16 Dover 75855 Yes (unchanged apart from ward realignments) 17 Folkestone and Hythe 72075 Yes (loses Ashford portion and two Romney wards (sadly can't lose Romney Marsh as well)) 18 Leeds (Kent) 70321 Yes (I know this would really be called Mid Kent, but couldn't resist! New constituency: takes the Mid Kent portion of Faversham and Mid Kent and the and the Weald portion of Maidstone and the Weald) |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 11, 2021 9:01:55 GMT
Kent. Reasonably minimal change in a way that keeps East and West Malling in the same constituency as one another. 1 Dartford 75969 Yes (gives Hartley back to Sevenoaks and loses Ebbsfleet to Gravesend) 2 Sevenoaks 77015 Yes (takes Hartley back from Dartford) 3 Tonbridge 70782 Yes (loses the Mallings to Strood) 4 Gravesend 75076 Yes (takes Ebbsfleet from Dartford; Gravesend now spelt correctly) 5 Strood and Malling 75244 Yes (loses Rochester to Chatham, adds the Mallings from Tonbridge) 6 Rochester and Chatham 73489 Yes (successor to Chatham and Aylesford; loses Aylesford to Maidstone, adds Rochester) 7 Gillingham and Rainham 73951 Yes (unchanged) 8 Sittingbourne and Sheppey 72133 Yes (loses wards east/south of Sittingbourne to Faversham) 9 Faversham 72421 Yes (no longer crosses into Maidstone District (see Leeds); takes some wards from Sittingbourne and the coastal portion of Canterbury) 10 Maidstone and Aylesford 73001 Yes (loses its "and the Weald" wards (see Leeds) and takes Aylesford from Chatham instead) 11 Tunbridge Wells 75213 Yes (unchanged) 12 Ashford South and Romney 75369 Yes (successor to Ashford; loses northern half of Ashford to Canterbury, expands south to reduce Folkestone and Hythe) 13 Ashford North and Canterbury 73271 Yes (successor to Canterbury; loses coastal portion to Faversham; expands south to take northern half of Ashford) 14 Thanet North 71829 Yes (unchanged) 15 Thanet South 71986 Yes (unchanged apart from ward realignments) 16 Dover 75855 Yes (unchanged apart from ward realignments) 17 Folkestone and Hythe 72075 Yes (loses Ashford portion and two Romney wards (sadly can't lose Romney Marsh as well)) 18 Leeds (Kent) 70321 Yes (I know this would really be called Mid Kent, but couldn't resist! New constituency: takes the Mid Kent portion of Faversham and Mid Kent and the and the Weald portion of Maidstone and the Weald) If the Boundary Commission see that, they'll offer you a job!  |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2021 9:04:01 GMT
You could just swap Queen’s Park and Hanover & Elm Grove and then Kingston wouldn’t be needed. How did I not spot that? I need to start taking a bit more time and care I too was evidently premature in my conclusions about Skidrow-on-Sea's outsized wards – thanks, iain |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 11, 2021 16:02:12 GMT
Given that I suggest pairing Berks and Bucks, that would mean Hampshire either has to stand alone or go with Surrey. Given that a lot of Hampshire districts have large ward sizes and often unwieldy boundaries, I haven't managed to find a stand alone-map I'm at all happy with. However, this Hampshire-Surrey map has a decent amount to recommend it:   East Surrey 73145 - there's only room for one Reigate & Banstead ward, Hooley and Merstham is probably the least worst option Reigate & Banstead 76139 Epsom & Leatherhead 76844 Mole Valley 74898 - the orphan ward from Elmbridge isn't lovely, but I couldn't find a less disruptive alternative Esher & Walton 73922 Spelthorne 72897 - unchanged Runnymede & Weybridge 74133 Woking 71737 - coextensive with the district Surrey Heath 70553 - Virginia Water doesn't look great here, but if you only need to take one Weybridge ward then it's probably the least disruptive option Guildford 75840 SW Surrey 70737 Aldershot & Farnham 72840 Farnborough & Fleet 72717 NE Hampshire 76420 - need to go south of Basingstoke to avoid splitting Tadley Basingstoke 70549 NW Hampshire 74063 East Hampshire 76943 - unchanged Meon Valley 75311 - they can't all be lookers. Only thing I'll say in favour of this is that it doesn't move many electors Havant 72766 - unchanged Portsmouth South 74253 - unchanged Portsmouth North 71844 - unchanged Fareham 76944 Gosport 73764 - unchanged Hedge End 75262 Eastleigh & Winchester 75407 - there isn't room for some new developments round Winchester in this seat Romsey & Southampton North 76206 Southampton Itchen 72150 - unchanged Southampton Test 69960 - unchanged New Forest East 73823 - unchanged New Forest West 71009 - unchanged On the plus side, ten unchanged seats isn't bad and the cross-border seat works nicely, as does Farnborough & Fleet. On the downside, central Hampshire. In retrospect, possibly I should have considered breaking up East Hampshire? |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 12, 2021 8:38:03 GMT
Here is what I have at the moment in Berkshire and northern Hampshire. (I'll say a little more about the rest of Hampshire below.)  The Berkshire constituencies are: 18. Pangbourne & Tadley (75,789). The eastern parts of West Berkshire, including all its Reading suburbs, and an area of Hampshire north of Basingstoke, including some of the fringe of that town. 19. Reading South (75,077; number not on map). Includes the Woodley wards currently in Reading East, and the Earley part of Wokingham. 20. Reading North (73,219). Entirely within the borough. I thought it made sense to put the wards north of the Thames in the all Reading seat. 21. Newbury (75,194). Loses all its eastern areas. 22. Bracknell (74,347). This makes it wholly contained within Bracknell Forest unitary. 23. Maidenhead (75,291). Simply loses Hurst. 24. Slough (71,682). Has to lose some territory to Windsor, and I don't think there are any good options. I guess this is why East Anglian Lefty is suggesting crossing the Bucks border instead. 25. Windsor (70,576). Gains a couple of wards from Slough. Still contains one orphan ward in Bracknell Forest. 26. Wokingham (74,513). Loses West Berkshire wards and Earley and moves east. Also contains an orphan ward in Bracknell Forest, unfortunately. I know the Crowthorne area spills across the boundary here, but it is a unitary authority boundary. An alternative for Bracknell and Wokingham, which gets rid of one of the orphan wards but adds an extra boundary crossing, would be to put the Sandhurst area in Wokingham (which I might then call Wokingham & Sandhurst, reflecting the extent of the changes) and Binfield with Warfield, Hurst and Winnersh into Bracknell. One eastern Bracknell Forest ward (doesn't matter which) would remain in Windsor. As for Hampshire, the map I have turns Meon Valley into a four district constituency (by moving Sarisbury ward from Fareham there instead of to Eastleigh) and has a rather awkwardly shaped North West Hampshire caused by moving Harewood ward into Winchester. If that's not on, then the best I can do is just recreate Pete Whitehead 's map, including the split of Yateley. Many of Hampshire's wards are big enough to be awkward building blocks. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,518
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 12, 2021 9:01:37 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. The thought of those Burnham pitchforks....one of my school friends mother was a Tory councillor in Burnham ( they lived next door to Terry Wogan at the time) and when the Post Office decided not only to make the home addresses of Burnham 'Slough' but gave them an SL1 postcode...well.... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 12, 2021 9:37:35 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. The thought of those Burnham pitchforks....one of my school friends mother was a Tory councillor in Burnham ( they lived next door to Terry Wogan at the time) and when the Post Office decided not only to make the home addresses of Burnham 'Slough' but gave them an SL1 postcode...well.... Yeah, I'm not suggesting it would be a popular option. The advantage of my plan is that Chesham & Amersham can remain unchanged and you don't have to worry about Marlow, but the people who aren't affected don't write in with letters of support... There are a bunch of other South Bucks wards that are functionally extensions of Slough and the numbers aren't too tight there. Would you get less outrage if you moved eg Wexham instead? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 12, 2021 13:15:32 GMT
Weren't some outer suburbs of Slough in the pre-1983 Beaconsfield seat?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,518
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 12, 2021 13:28:34 GMT
Weren't some outer suburbs of Slough in the pre-1983 Beaconsfield seat? Yes. The Britwell estate - which made up much of the Labour vote in the seat. It's very much an all white working class enclave. I'm sure the Leave vote there would have been overwhelming |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,518
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 12, 2021 13:30:16 GMT
The thought of those Burnham pitchforks....one of my school friends mother was a Tory councillor in Burnham ( they lived next door to Terry Wogan at the time) and when the Post Office decided not only to make the home addresses of Burnham 'Slough' but gave them an SL1 postcode...well.... Yeah, I'm not suggesting it would be a popular option. The advantage of my plan is that Chesham & Amersham can remain unchanged and you don't have to worry about Marlow, but the people who aren't affected don't write in with letters of support... There are a bunch of other South Bucks wards that are functionally extensions of Slough and the numbers aren't too tight there. Would you get less outrage if you moved eg Wexham instead? Probably not! I agree with your analysis - these villages are the posh end of Slough and should have been shifted into Berkshire with the town. |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,909
|
Post by spqr on Jan 12, 2021 19:28:04 GMT
Weren't some outer suburbs of Slough in the pre-1983 Beaconsfield seat? Yes. The Britwell estate - which made up much of the Labour vote in the seat. It's very much an all white working class enclave. I'm sure the Leave vote there would have been overwhelming The Britwell estate was the star of the show on many old episodes of Road Wars. Great place for driving a stolen Ford Fiesta XR2 into a tree. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 12, 2021 21:50:16 GMT
Wexham Court as well. Britwell isn't all white by a long way anymore, though it is clearly the 'whitest' ward in Slough
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 13, 2021 14:56:03 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) You could just swap Queen’s Park and Hanover & Elm Grove and then Kingston wouldn’t be needed. Well, you could, but wouldn't you then be taking Kemptown (or much of it) out of Kemptown?
Another option would be to shift Regency ward into the Kemptown seat.
True, Brighton Pavilion would lose its access to the sea but it wouldn't have to change its name because the Pavilion would still (just) be in the seat, albeit at the extreme southern tip.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 13, 2021 15:02:08 GMT
That would be a ridiculous change and a ridiculous reason to do it too.
Change the name if necessary, but I think enough of Kemptown is in the East Brighton ward that you can justify continuing to use the historical name using the 'Plymouth Sutton principle'..
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 13, 2021 16:13:58 GMT
That would be a ridiculous change and a ridiculous reason to do it too. Change the name if necessary, but I think enough of Kemptown is in the East Brighton ward that you can justify continuing to use the historical name using the 'Plymouth Sutton principle'.. Why?
I'm not particularly advocating for this change, but what is so wrong with a suggestion of shifting a single ward from an oversized seat to an adjoining undersized one so as to bring both within range with no need for further changes? Isn't it the sort of thing we do all the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 13, 2021 16:37:27 GMT
That would be a ridiculous change and a ridiculous reason to do it too. Change the name if necessary, but I think enough of Kemptown is in the East Brighton ward that you can justify continuing to use the historical name using the 'Plymouth Sutton principle'.. Why? I'm not particularly advocating for this change, but what is so wrong with a suggestion of shifting a single ward from an oversized seat to an adjoining undersized one so as to bring both within range with no need for further changes? Isn't it the sort of thing we do all the time?
Because we're in the business of (at least where possible) respecting natural communities. Brighton Kempton is, in all but name, the Eastern constituency of Brighton. Regency ward is basically the West End - west of the city centre, west of Dyke Road. It just doesn't belong in Kemptown. Sure you could argue Queen's Park doesn't belong in Pavilion but it isn't as bad - it flows naturally enough from the neigbouring wards without some werid convoluted boundary. And the reason for doing it is ridiculous in that it is just to justify continued use of a particular name - we should always be concentrating on the quality of the boundaries rather than getting the boundaries to fit a name (I'm guilty of that often enough myself admittedly). If a name becomes no longer appropriate you can change it, but as I say you can justify continuing to use the Kemptown name IMO just as Plymouth Sutton continued to be used when it excluded Sutton |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 13, 2021 18:05:11 GMT
There's also a near-Plymouth-style two-ward swap if moving all of Kemptown out of Kemptown is better:  1 Brighton Woodingdean 70673 Yes 2 Brighton Pavilion and Kemptown 74914 Yes 3 Hove 73726 Yes |
|
