|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 13, 2021 19:55:45 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 That was in my plan where I had not noticed the single ward swap option (and had decided against adding Kingston) |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 13, 2021 19:57:34 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 That was in my plan where I had not noticed the single ward swap option (and had decided against adding Kingston) Sorry, had missed that that was a reinvention. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 14, 2021 17:55:55 GMT
A revised Sussex, taking a couple of things (Brighton, Arundel not needing to cross into Chichester) where on balance I agree with Pete Whitehead 's original plan. Still prefer the more compact effect of arranging Newhaven and East Grinstead this way and trying to restrain Lewes from going too far west.  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 73103 Yes 7 Brighton Woodingdean 70673 Yes 8 Brighton Pavilion and Kemptown 74914 Yes 9 Hove 73726 Yes 10 Mid Sussex 76950 Yes 11 Crawley 74446 Yes 12 Worthing East and Shoreham 75466 Yes 13 Worthing West 76293 Yes 14 Arundel 72427 Yes 15 Bognor 73762 Yes 16 Chichester 70530 Yes 17 Horsham 72529 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jan 14, 2021 19:30:55 GMT
Some have suggested that it might work better, for the latter's sake, if Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire were paired; in turn, I've given it a go. There are some parts of the region, particularly Milton Keynes, that I don't know so well. So, if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be grateful for them. I'm also hoping that the image has attached correctly - if anyone can provide an explainer for an IT illiterate person, please do. Perhaps I'm a Luddite and not a Digger. Update: I managed to finally work it out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 14, 2021 20:23:02 GMT
Some have suggested that it might work better, for the latter's sake, if Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire were paired; in turn, I've given it a go. There are some parts of the region, particularly Milton Keynes, that I don't know so well. So, if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be grateful for them. I'm also hoping that the image has attached correctly - if anyone can provide an explainer for an IT illiterate person, please do. Perhaps I'm a Luddite and not a Digger. Update: I managed to finally work it out. Your Milton Keynes suggestion is excellent - I couldn't have come up with anything better myself (though ricmk might not agreee  ) I'm instinctively against a Bucks/Oxon crossing both because it is unnecessary and because it seems more obvious (because of past associations) to cross between Oxfordshire and Berkshire or between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire (the Bucks/Oxon boundary being the one constant of the three). That said if you were to do that, then a Henley and Marlow association has a lot to commend it - quite similar Thames-side towns. It also causes the extra Buckinghamshire seat to look less odd and causes less disruption to Beaconsfield and Chesham & Amersham - I think you've just moved Austenwood from one to the other and that's basically part of Gerrards Cross anyway Edit. I've just noticed you moved Thame into the Mid Bucks seat though. Not so good |
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jan 14, 2021 21:13:00 GMT
Some have suggested that it might work better, for the latter's sake, if Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire were paired; in turn, I've given it a go. There are some parts of the region, particularly Milton Keynes, that I don't know so well. So, if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be grateful for them. I'm also hoping that the image has attached correctly - if anyone can provide an explainer for an IT illiterate person, please do. Perhaps I'm a Luddite and not a Digger. Update: I managed to finally work it out. Your Milton Keynes suggestion is excellent - I couldn't have come up with anything better myself (though ricmk might not agreee ) I'm instinctively against a Bucks/Oxon crossing both because it is unnecessary and because it seems more obvious (because of past associations) to cross between Oxfordshire and Berkshire or between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire (the Bucks/Oxon boundary being the one constant of the three). That said if you were to do that, then a Henley and Marlow association has a lot to commend it - quite similar Thames-side towns. It also causes the extra Buckinghamshire seat to look less odd and causes less disruption to Beaconsfield and Chesham & Amersham - I think you've just moved Austenwood from one to the other and that's basically part of Gerrards Cross anyway Edit. I've just noticed you moved Thame into the Mid Bucks seat though. Not so good I agree with your comment on Oxfordshire and Berkshire being a better match. However, when I’ve tired to create a combination of the two, I always end up with the wards left in the middle of Berkshire, which don’t quite fit anywhere and aren’t enough to make a whole seat. Perhaps I’m not being experimental enough. For me, the seats you can make in an Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire combination, are better than the ones you can make when both counties stand alone. On Thame, I understand that this not the preferable allocation, but one that is, unfortunately, needed to be done for the numbers to work. With that being said, Thame is not unconnected from the mid-Bucks, take Haddenham & Thame Parkway, for example. It’s not perfect; it’s not terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 14, 2021 21:30:20 GMT
Your Milton Keynes suggestion is excellent - I couldn't have come up with anything better myself (though ricmk might not agreee ) I'm instinctively against a Bucks/Oxon crossing both because it is unnecessary and because it seems more obvious (because of past associations) to cross between Oxfordshire and Berkshire or between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire (the Bucks/Oxon boundary being the one constant of the three). That said if you were to do that, then a Henley and Marlow association has a lot to commend it - quite similar Thames-side towns. It also causes the extra Buckinghamshire seat to look less odd and causes less disruption to Beaconsfield and Chesham & Amersham - I think you've just moved Austenwood from one to the other and that's basically part of Gerrards Cross anyway Edit. I've just noticed you moved Thame into the Mid Bucks seat though. Not so good I agree with your comment on Oxfordshire and Berkshire being a better match. However, when I’ve tired to create a combination of the two, I always end up with the wards left in the middle of Berkshire, which don’t quite fit anywhere and aren’t enough to make a whole seat. Perhaps I’m not being experimental enough. For me, the seats you can make in an Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire combination, are better than the ones you can make when both counties stand alone. On Thame, I understand that this not the preferable allocation, but one that is, unfortunately, needed to be done for the numbers to work. With that being said, Thame is not unconnected from the mid-Bucks, take Haddenham & Thame Parkway, for example. It’s not perfect; it’s not terrible. If you look again at the allocations in this region: Looks like the pairings will be: Berks/Ox Hants (inc Southampton)/Surrey The two Sussex Bucks/Milton Keynes Kent/Medway Portsmouth standing alone. Quotas by county (including unitary authorities ceremonially within said county): Berkshire: 8.65 Buckinghamshire: 8.00 East Sussex: 8.38 Hampshire: 18.43 Kent: 18.05 Oxfordshire: 6.81 Surrey: 11.71 West Sussex: 8.81 Oxfordshire and Surrey can both in fact stand alone and Berkshire can be paired with Hampshire (not ideal, though). You can see that Buckinghamshire is bang on for 8 seats and doesn't need pairing with anywhere. Oxfordshire is good for 7 but the numbers are tight. Berkshire just about could bear 9 seats but that's even tighter and it's clear that pairing Berks and Oxon makes for close to 15.5 quotas so is not helpful anyway. A consensus seems to have developed that a Hampshire/Berkshire cross county seat would be the best solution and while it doesn't sound good in theory, in practice I was able to make what I thought was quite a good arrangement with that which also sorted out that mess of wards you refer to in Mid Berkshire (and thus enable the existing 8 seats in the county to remain in recognisable form. I suppose Buckinghamshire could be paired with Oxon to ease the pressure on the latter caused by the closeness of the average seat size to the minimum quota (71,390/69,724). I guess you need to probably use a bit more of Bucks to make it worthwhile. Your proposal only adds a net 7k voters from Buckinghamshire to Oxfordshire (equating to 1k per constituency). One option would be to take Flackwell Heath & Little Marlow but that has negative consequences for the arrangements in Beaconsfield and Chesham & Amersham. I wonder if a better approach may be to expand the Bicester seat to take in some of those awkward rural wards from Aylesbury Vale which have been displaced by Buckingham's annexation of part of Milton Keynes |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 14, 2021 21:36:47 GMT
Actually 7k is 0.1 of a quota which is about the right amount to transfer so forget what I said about that. Still think Bicester may be the best place to do it though. I will have a play (I swore I was going to leave my PC before 9 this evening and remove to the sofa and Netflix)
|
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jan 14, 2021 21:58:58 GMT
Actually 7k is 0.1 of a quota which is about the right amount to transfer so forget what I said about that. Still think Bicester may be the best place to do it though. I will have a play (I swore I was going to leave my PC before 9 this evening and remove to the sofa and Netflix) Sorry for keeping you glued. I know a 15 seat Oxon/Berks combination isn't particularly useful; however, I decided to play around with it anyway. Apart from the Caversham split, I don't think it's half bad. Reading West is also just over, but I am sure there's a combination that would make it work.  |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 14, 2021 23:08:38 GMT
Even though Bucks should be okay on its own, unless John Betjeman's friendly bombs get a move on, Slough is such a bloody awkward size and shape that a Bucks-Berks pairing is only going to improve things.
I can also see that someone commented upthread that Surrey can theoretically stand alone. It looks much better paired with Hants to me, but I was wondering whether it was even possible without breaking up Spelthorne (which obviously has the Thames in the way and should really be in Middlesex).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 14, 2021 23:14:57 GMT
Even though Bucks should be okay on its own, unless John Betjeman's friendly bombs get a move on, Slough is such a bloody awkward size and shape that a Bucks-Berks pairing is only going to improve things. I can also see that someone commented upthread that Surrey can theoretically stand alone. It looks much better paired with Hants to me, but I was wondering whether it was even possible without breaking up Spelthorne (which obviously has the Thames in the way and should really be in Middlesex). Not only do you not need to break up Spelthorne but you can't because any ward you remove would bring it below quota. Some of us have done plans for 12 seat Surreys without any need for a crossing of county boundaries (Hampshire or Middlesex) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 14, 2021 23:23:28 GMT
I'm coming round to the view that treating the Thames Valley as a whole for 23 seats might be the best way to go, something like this  It's not entirely serious, but it's not entirely not serious either Obviously you've got the 'cross'county' Wantage seat (which is all Berkshire really anyway). Then Peppard ward of Reading to Henley (where it was up until 1974) and Wexham ward of Slough to Beaconsfield (where it was until 1983 (Britwell would work as an alternative) |
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jan 14, 2021 23:43:43 GMT
I'm coming round to the view that treating the Thames Valley as a whole for 23 seats might be the best way to go, something like this It's not entirely serious, but it's not entirely not serious either Obviously you've got the 'cross'county' Wantage seat (which is all Berkshire really anyway). Then Peppard ward of Reading to Henley (where it was up until 1974) and Wexham ward of Slough to Beaconsfield (where it was until 1983 (Britwell would work as an alternative) Great minds think alike. Two constituencies (Oxford and Abingdon) are slightly out, but a few more tweaks and I'll think it'll be done.  |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jan 15, 2021 3:08:50 GMT
A first draft of a seven seat Oxfordshire. Banbury All of Cherwell district except the Kidlington and Bicester wards and Launton & Otmoor; from West Oxfordshire district Chipping Norton, Kingham etc., The Bartons. 72,008 Bicester & Thame From Cherwell district the Kidlington and Bicester wards and Launton & Otmoor; from South Oxfordshire district Chinnor, Forest Hill & Holton, Hasely Brook, Thame; from West Oxfordshire district Woodstock. 72,867 Witney The parts of West Oxfordshire district not in the two above seats. 70,276 Oxford West & Abingdon From Vale of White Horse the Abingdon wards, Botley & Sunningwell, Cumnor, Marcham, Wootton; from Oxford city Carfax & Jericho, Cutteslowe & Sunnymead, Osney & St Thomas, Summertown, Walton Manor, Wolvercote. 72,004 Oxford East All of Oxford city not in the previous seat. 72,371 Henley All of South Oxfordshire district not in Bicester & Thame except the three Didcot wards; from Vale of White Horse Blewbury & Harwell. 70,233 Wantage From South Oxfordshire district the three Didcot wards; from Vale of White Horse everything not in Henley or Oxford West & Abingdon. 69,972 Basically the new seat is formed from the Bicester and Kidlington areas plus the north of the old Henley seat, OxWAb loses Kidlington but regains Oxford city centre, Banbury takes on Chipping Norton, and Wantage and Henley are adjusted to make the numbers work. The boundary around Didcot is a bit awkward and double crosses the district border; I did find a way of avoiding the double crossing that by moving Didcot into Henley but it gave Wantage a weird extension east of the Thames. Wallingford and the villages to the west do not belong in Henley to any extent, but otherwise the plan is decent. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jan 15, 2021 3:20:03 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. Decent plan, but do you mean Tilehurst or Minster wards of RBC into Reading Central as Priory doesn't exist??!🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jan 15, 2021 3:28:41 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. Best plan yet, although I would still like to see an Abingdon - Wallingford - Didcot seat if possible, this is a decent option. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jan 15, 2021 3:41:37 GMT
I'm coming round to the view that treating the Thames Valley as a whole for 23 seats might be the best way to go, something like this It's not entirely serious, but it's not entirely not serious either Obviously you've got the 'cross'county' Wantage seat (which is all Berkshire really anyway). Then Peppard ward of Reading to Henley (where it was up until 1974) and Wexham ward of Slough to Beaconsfield (where it was until 1983 (Britwell would work as an alternative) Reading Labour would love you for that. Peppard is the most consistently Tory ward in Reading. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jan 15, 2021 3:44:24 GMT
Actually 7k is 0.1 of a quota which is about the right amount to transfer so forget what I said about that. Still think Bicester may be the best place to do it though. I will have a play (I swore I was going to leave my PC before 9 this evening and remove to the sofa and Netflix) Sorry for keeping you glued. I know a 15 seat Oxon/Berks combination isn't particularly useful; however, I decided to play around with it anyway. Apart from the Caversham split, I don't think it's half bad. Reading West is also just over, but I am sure there's a combination that would make it work. Peppard is the only Reading ward that possibly belongs in Oxon, the Boundary Commission would not allow any more to be put in South Oxon as the rest is urban Reading - I should know, I grew up in Caversham ward.Peppard wards is mostly Caversham Park Village, which is similar to suburban Sonning and Peppard Common a couple miles north in South Oxon. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 15, 2021 7:15:07 GMT
I'm coming round to the view that treating the Thames Valley as a whole for 23 seats might be the best way to go, something like this That leaves the SE short a seat as a whole, unless you're allocating 31 seats for only just over 30 quotas in Hampshire and Surrey or something. I think Oxfordshire should be treated on its own for 7 seats. There is a case for pairing Bucks and Berks (17 seats) to fix the Slough problem, but I think it would have to be along the lines EAL suggested where you put a bit of (what used to be) South Bucks into Slough, allowing the whole of Langley into Windsor. (However I'm not looking at Bucks in any detail until we have the new ward data.) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 15, 2021 7:28:18 GMT
Wallingford and the villages to the west do not belong in Henley to any extent, but otherwise the plan is decent. How do you feel about crossing the Thames west of Oxford instead, putting the Faringdon area into Witney and retaining a Wantage-Didcot-Wallingford seat? You would still have to cross the Thames near Didcot, unless you split that ward which crosses it, but apart from there you can keep the current Henley/Wantage boundary. |
|
)
