2023 Review - South East

[yellowperil]

Jan 15, 2021 7:15:07 GMT YL said:

Jan 14, 2021 23:23:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

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.)

I thought Betjeman had the definitive answer to that.

[gerrardwinstanley]

Jan 15, 2021 3:44:24 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

Jan 14, 2021 21:58:58 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

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.

The problem is that we are working with a system which priorities equal voter distribution over community ties/cohesion. In the case of the Berskhire, this, I would suggest, means that something undesirable, like moving Caversham out of Reading, will need to happen. Others have suggested alternative 'undesirables', such as a cross Berkshire/Hampshire seat. Ultimately, something has to give. 

For me, using the FPTP system and then prioritising proportionality over community is counterintuitive. The saving grace of FPTP is its community representation; it's not its proportionality. But, alas, we can only work with what we've been given. 

To note, I decided to play around with a 7.5% variation for Oxfordshire. The seats that you can create under this variation are head-and-shoulders above those under 5%; it really highlights the stupidity of the current system. 

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 15, 2021 7:15:07 GMT YL said:

Jan 14, 2021 23:23:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

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.)

No bad maths - it should be 24 for that sub-region. As you say Oxon can be treated alone for 7 and Bucks can for 8. Its been shown that Surrey can sustain 12 whole seats as well so while my instincts were against it and it sounds bad in theory, a Hants/Berks seat seems to work well in practice. But yes there is potentially a case for crossing between Bucks and Berks if it makes things easier - more likely though, as in my example above by detaching a ward from Slough to add to Beaconsfield to compensate for the loss of Marlow, rather than vice versa

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 15, 2021 3:08:50 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

Jan 6, 2021 9:45:32 GMT YL said:

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.

Yes, Minster was what I meant. Must have been a case of medievalist brain.

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Jan 15, 2021 7:28:18 GMT YL said:

Jan 15, 2021 3:08:50 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

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.

That looks a lot better, considering the area to the west of Oxford is a lot more rural than the area around Wallingford and Didcot. If you take Harwell and Blewbury into Henley, you leave Didcot out on a limb.

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Jan 15, 2021 7:53:37 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

Jan 15, 2021 3:44:24 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

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.

The problem is that we are working with a system which priorities equal voter distribution over community ties/cohesion. In the case of the Berskhire, this, I would suggest, means that something undesirable, like moving Caversham out of Reading, will need to happen. Others have suggested alternative 'undesirables', such as a cross Berkshire/Hampshire seat. Ultimately, something has to give. 

For me, using the FPTP system and then prioritising proportionality over community is counterintuitive. The saving grace of FPTP is its community representation; it's not its proportionality. But, alas, we can only work with what we've been given. 

To note, I decided to play around with a 7.5% variation for Oxfordshire. The seats that you can create under this variation are head-and-shoulders above those under 5%; it really highlights the stupidity of the current system. 

A seat around the Berks - Hants- Surrey border is fine, Sandhurst and Crowthorne have little connection with the rest of Bracknell Forest and indeed the rest of Berkshire. They have very strong connections with Rushmoor, most of Hart and the rest of the Blackwater Valley area in Surrey.
The tight 5 percent variation limit does seem ignorant, but, yes, as you say the Boundary Commission just want equal sized seats everywhere.

[gerrardwinstanley]

Jan 15, 2021 7:28:18 GMT YL said:

Jan 15, 2021 3:08:50 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

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.

If you do this, how does Henley meet the quota? 

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 15, 2021 9:55:37 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

Jan 15, 2021 7:53:37 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

The problem is that we are working with a system which priorities equal voter distribution over community ties/cohesion. In the case of the Berskhire, this, I would suggest, means that something undesirable, like moving Caversham out of Reading, will need to happen. Others have suggested alternative 'undesirables', such as a cross Berkshire/Hampshire seat. Ultimately, something has to give. 

For me, using the FPTP system and then prioritising proportionality over community is counterintuitive. The saving grace of FPTP is its community representation; it's not its proportionality. But, alas, we can only work with what we've been given. 

To note, I decided to play around with a 7.5% variation for Oxfordshire. The seats that you can create under this variation are head-and-shoulders above those under 5%; it really highlights the stupidity of the current system. 

A seat around the Berks - Hants- Surrey border is fine, Sandhurst and Crowthorne have little connection with the rest of Bracknell Forest and indeed the rest of Berkshire. They have very strong connections with Rushmoor, most of Hart and the rest of the Blackwater Valley area in Surrey.
The tight 5 percent variation limit does seem ignorant, but, yes, as you say the Boundary Commission just want equal sized seats everywhere.

Absolutely, Sandhurst is most closely linked with Camberley in Surrey. A seat combining the four Sandhurst wards with Camberley and Frimley from Surrey Heath and Yateley and Blackwater from Hart would be very plausible on its own terms, but of course a three-county solution would never fly. The other problem is that Sandhurst only accounts for 0.2 of a quota (and adding Crowthorne (including Wokingham without) only brings it to 0.3 whereas if you are going to involve Berkshire in a cross county seat it needs to supply at least 0.6 of a quota otherwise you are left with too many voters in what remains (and removing all that creates major, unresolvable issues with Bracknell and Windsor)

[YL]

I think it works out quite well if that Thames crossing is acceptable. I treated Sandford & the Wittenhams as being on the "Berkshire bank", allowing the northern boundary of the Henley seat to be the district one.



Henley (70,626) All of South Oxfordshire district east of the Thames except the part of Sandford & the Wittenhams ward which is.
Wantage (71,460) Loses rural territory in the north-west, but retains the core around Wantage and Didcot.
Witney & Kingston Bagpuize (72,938) The alternative Thames crossing allows us to celebrate one of England's best village names.
Banbury (69,943) Extends a little further into West Oxfordshire district.
Bicester & Woodstock (70,389) This version of the new seat doesn't need any of South Oxfordshire.
Oxford West & Abingdon (72,004) As I had it before.
Oxford East (72,371) Also as before.

[gerrardwinstanley]

Jan 15, 2021 10:19:07 GMT YL said:

I think it works out quite well if that Thames crossing is acceptable. I treated Sandford & the Wittenhams as being on the "Berkshire bank", allowing the northern boundary of the Henley seat to be the district one.



Henley (70,626) All of South Oxfordshire district east of the Thames except the part of Sandford & the Wittenhams ward which is.
Wantage (71,460) Loses rural territory in the north-west, but retains the core around Wantage and Didcot.
Witney & Kingston Bagpuize (72,938) The alternative Thames crossing allows us to celebrate one of England's best village names.
Banbury (69,943) Extends a little further into West Oxfordshire district.
Bicester & Woodstock (70,389) This version of the new seat doesn't need any of South Oxfordshire.
Oxford West & Abingdon (72,004) As I had it before.
Oxford East (72,371) Also as before.

Personally, I'm sceptical about a seat that runs from Uffington to Foscot. However, I understand that numbers are tight, and things like this, unfortunately, have to be done. 

On a side note/personal gripe, Kingston Bagpuize may be one of England's best named villages, but its name is about as good as it gets. I'm all for house building; however, Kingston and Southmoor have fallen foul to a number of soulless, architecturally-bland estates - the likes of which are being built across this area. There seems to be no effort or desire to do these things well.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 15, 2021 10:16:26 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 15, 2021 9:55:37 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

A seat around the Berks - Hants- Surrey border is fine, Sandhurst and Crowthorne have little connection with the rest of Bracknell Forest and indeed the rest of Berkshire. They have very strong connections with Rushmoor, most of Hart and the rest of the Blackwater Valley area in Surrey.
The tight 5 percent variation limit does seem ignorant, but, yes, as you say the Boundary Commission just want equal sized seats everywhere.

Absolutely, Sandhurst is most closely linked with Camberley in Surrey. A seat combining the four Sandhurst wards with Camberley and Frimley from Surrey Heath and Yateley and Blackwater from Hart would be very plausible on its own terms, but of course a three-county solution would never fly. The other problem is that Sandhurst only accounts for 0.2 of a quota (and adding Crowthorne (including Wokingham without) only brings it to 0.3 whereas if you are going to involve Berkshire in a cross county seat it needs to supply at least 0.6 of a quota otherwise you are left with too many voters in what remains (and removing all that creates major, unresolvable issues with Bracknell and Windsor)

Actually this does work if you simultaneously cross the Berkshire Oxfordshire border (which actually almost completely restores the correct border there)



Not sure of the effect on Surrey and Hampshire though. I guess the remainder of Surrey is down to 11 seats but you might have to effect another crossing there perhaps along the lines of the Aldershot/Farnham seat

[ricmk]

Jan 14, 2021 20:23:02 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 14, 2021 19:30:55 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

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

If you are looking for a more plausible Torymander in MK, you could do worse than this:


North seat is as per yours, safe Tory.
South seat takes Labour strength in Bletchley but matches it against Tory east flank strength - politically similar to current MK South seat.
West & Buckingham takes an area that Labour will have the edge in, but not by anything like enough to dislodge the Tory vote in Buckingham.

The one downer is that I can only make it work with Central Milton Keynes in the cross-border seat so no style points, but other than that it's both good for the Tories and bad for pitchfork salesmen compared to the above.

[greenhert]

Finally got a plan for Surrey (entitled to a 12th seat) although it is a mess:

1. Spelthorne (72,897). Unchanged.
2. Chertsey (69,965). Succeeds Runnymede & Weybridge. Loses Addlestone North, Addlestone South and New Haw wards within Runnymede, and gains the Surrey Heath wards of Bagshot, Bisley & West End, Lightwater, and Windlesham & Cobham.
3. Guildford (70,747). Loses all Waverley wards except for Blackheath & Winnersh and also the Guildford wards of Pilgrims and Worplesdon, gains the Guildford wards of Clandon & Horsley, Effingham, Lovelace, and Send.
4. Camberley & Ash (71,397). Succeeds Surrey Heath. Loses the Surrey Heath wards of Bagshot, Bisley & West End, Lightwater, and Windlesham & Cobham, and gains the Guildford wards of Normandy, Pilgrims, Pirbright and Worplesdon.
5. Woking (71,737). Now coterminous with borough of Woking.
6. Addlestone, Weybridge & Walton (74,737). Succeeds Esher & Walton in practice. Contains the Runnymede wards of Addlestone North, Addlestone South, and New Haw, and the Elmbridge wards of Long Ditton, Molesey East, Molesey West, Oatlands & Burwood Park, Thames Ditton, Walton (all), Weybridge Riverside, and Weybridge St George's Hill.
7. Epsom & Ewell (71,089). Loses all Mole Valley wards.
8. Esher & Leatherhead (72,855). New seat. Contains all Elmbridge wards not in Addlestone, Weybridge & Walton, and the Mole Valley wards of Ashtead (all), Bookham North, Bookham South, Fetcham East, Fetcham West, Leatherhead North, and Leatherhead South.
9. East Surrey (72,410). Loses Horley East & Salfords and Horley West & Sidlow wards.
10. Reigate (69,742). Adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged.
11. Farnham & Godalming (72,560). Succeeds South West Surrey. Loses Bramley, Busbridge & Hascombe and Chiddingfold & Dunsfold wards.
12. Dorking & Cranleigh (70,338). Succeeds Mole Valley in practice. Contains Horley East & Salfords and Horley West & Sidlow wards in Reigate, all Mole Valley wards not in Esher & Leatherhead, the Guildford ward of Tillingcombe, and the Waverley wards of Alfold, Cranleigh Rural & Ellens Green, Bramley, Busbridge & Hascombe, Chiddingfold & Dunsfold, Cranleigh East, Cranleigh West, Ewhurst, and Sharmley Green & Cranleigh North.

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Jan 15, 2021 10:04:56 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

Jan 15, 2021 7:28:18 GMT YL said:

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.

If you do this, how does Henley meet the quota? 

I imagine putting Faringdon into Witney enables more of former Witney to be put in the new Bicester seat or Banbury maybe and then Thame and district can go back into Henley, maybe?

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Jan 15, 2021 10:16:26 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 15, 2021 9:55:37 GMT Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells said:

A seat around the Berks - Hants- Surrey border is fine, Sandhurst and Crowthorne have little connection with the rest of Bracknell Forest and indeed the rest of Berkshire. They have very strong connections with Rushmoor, most of Hart and the rest of the Blackwater Valley area in Surrey.
The tight 5 percent variation limit does seem ignorant, but, yes, as you say the Boundary Commission just want equal sized seats everywhere.

Absolutely, Sandhurst is most closely linked with Camberley in Surrey. A seat combining the four Sandhurst wards with Camberley and Frimley from Surrey Heath and Yateley and Blackwater from Hart would be very plausible on its own terms, but of course a three-county solution would never fly. The other problem is that Sandhurst only accounts for 0.2 of a quota (and adding Crowthorne (including Wokingham without) only brings it to 0.3 whereas if you are going to involve Berkshire in a cross county seat it needs to supply at least 0.6 of a quota otherwise you are left with too many voters in what remains (and removing all that creates major, unresolvable issues with Bracknell and Windsor)

Sandhurst should be moved into Surrey Heath anyway, it never has had much of a connection to Bracknell, Crowthorne is much more closely connected to Wokingham, so that should be in Wokingham district.

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Jan 15, 2021 10:19:07 GMT YL said:

I think it works out quite well if that Thames crossing is acceptable. I treated Sandford & the Wittenhams as being on the "Berkshire bank", allowing the northern boundary of the Henley seat to be the district one.



Henley (70,626) All of South Oxfordshire district east of the Thames except the part of Sandford & the Wittenhams ward which is.
Wantage (71,460) Loses rural territory in the north-west, but retains the core around Wantage and Didcot.
Witney & Kingston Bagpuize (72,938) The alternative Thames crossing allows us to celebrate one of England's best village names.
Banbury (69,943) Extends a little further into West Oxfordshire district.
Bicester & Woodstock (70,389) This version of the new seat doesn't need any of South Oxfordshire.
Oxford West & Abingdon (72,004) As I had it before.
Oxford East (72,371) Also as before.

That looks much better. That Oxford Outer seat (Bicester and Woodstock) is very logical and a lot of the added rural territory in the new Witney and Kingston Bagpuize looks towards Witney anyway, so that's not a massive issue. Best of all, it keeps Henley east of the Thames, where it should be.

[islington]

Here's a 12-seat Surrey plan to brighten everyone's Friday.

Spelthorne - 72897. No change.

Chertsey - 71675. Loses its Elmbridge elements, gains Windlesham and Bagshot from the following seat.

North West Surrey - 70701. Unchanged apart from the loss of those two wards.

South West Surrey - 71519. Loses three eastern wards, gains Pilgrims ward from Guildford.

Guildford - 70170. Loses Pilgrims and its Waverley element; gains Tillingbourne and two wards from Woking. Altogether more compact than the current seat.

Woking - 71737. Now coterminous with the district.

Walton and Weybridge - 73112. Gains Weybridge, loses the four southern wards: a neat compact Thames-side seat.

Leatherhead - 72621. There's a case for adding 'Esher' to the name. Either this or the following could be regarded as the new seat: the northern half of Mole Valley district, plus the four wards from Elmbridge and two from Reigate & Banstead. A bit of a what-was-left-over seat to be honest.

Dorking - 71254. In which case, this is what-else-was-left-over. It extends too far north to be called S Surrey, and the town of Dorking is reasonably central and has been used as a constituency name in the past.

Epsom and Banstead - 70849. Loses the Ashtead wards and Tattenham Cnr; gains Banstead Village.

Reigate - 70274. Chipstead ward doesn't look like a great fit (and isn't) but there are a couple of country lanes to satisfy connectivity purists. Unfortunately it needs to borrow Charlwood from Mole Valley to get within range.

East Surrey - 73145. Swaps Horley for Hooley.   

[islington]

And here's another attempt at Berks and N Hants (with the rest of Hants as Pete Whitehead had it).

Slough - 75287. There's no satisfactory way of doing this.

Windsor - 74927. Yes, three UAs as usual.

Bracknell - 74347. Now contained entirely within the UA.

Maidenhead - 75291. Loses Hurst but otherwise unchanged.

Reading East - 76655. Unchanged.

Reading West - 72495. Loses Theale but otherwise unchanged.

Newbury - 72016.

Mid Berkshire - 72303. A fine specimen of the 'Mid' genre, I'm sure everyone will agree. It actually comprises most of the current Wokingham seat, but not Wokingham itself (see below), plus the wards squeezed out of Newbury, plus Hurst and Theale. But at least it does lie wholly within Berkshire.

Wokingham and Tadley - 70598. The cross-county seat. Other names are possible. An argument for this approach is that at least the Berks element has a clear focus on a substantial town. (The same can't be said for the Hants side but see below.)

Aldershot - 76765. Note the obligatory split of Yateley.

Fleet and Whitchurch - 76069.

Basingstoke - 70459.

North East Hampshire - 72623.

As a bonus, an alternative approach to Surrey is (mostly) visible. It puts Godalming into what is then much more of a S Surrey seat, with SW Surrey expanding into Guildford district.

Edited to add: Further tinkering reveals a possibility that anchors the cross-county seat in a substantial town on each side of the border. The cross-county seat could take the three wards of Fleet town in exchange for its Basingstoke & Deane wards. This would give Wokingham & Fleet (74158) and North Hampshire (for want of a better name) (72509). However, it does involve indulging the pretense that Fleet and Church Crookham are separate places.  

[greenhert]

Jan 15, 2021 17:15:10 GMT islington said:

Here's a 12-seat Surrey plan to brighten everyone's Friday.

Spelthorne - 72897. No change.

Chertsey - 71675. Loses its Elmbridge elements, gains Windlesham and Bagshot from the following seat.

North West Surrey - 70701. Unchanged apart from the loss of those two wards.

South West Surrey - 71519. Loses three eastern wards, gains Pilgrims ward from Guildford.

Guildford - 70170. Loses Pilgrims and its Waverley element; gains Tillingbourne and two wards from Woking. Altogether more compact than the current seat.

Woking - 71737. Now coterminous with the district.

Walton and Weybridge - 73112. Gains Weybridge, loses the four southern wards: a neat compact Thames-side seat.

Leatherhead - 72621. There's a case for adding 'Esher' to the name. Either this or the following could be regarded as the new seat: the northern half of Mole Valley district, plus the four wards from Elmbridge and two from Reigate & Banstead. A bit of a what-was-left-over seat to be honest.

Dorking - 71254. In which case, this is what-else-was-left-over. It extends too far north to be called S Surrey, and the town of Dorking is reasonably central and has been used as a constituency name in the past.

Epsom and Banstead - 70849. Loses the Ashtead wards and Tattenham Cnr; gains Banstead Village.

Reigate - 70274. Chipstead ward doesn't look like a great fit (and isn't) but there are a couple of country lanes to satisfy connectivity purists. Unfortunately it needs to borrow Charlwood from Mole Valley to get within range.

East Surrey - 73145. Swaps Horley for Hooley.   

There has not been a North West Surrey constituency since 1997. You presumably mean Surrey Heath.

The "Esher" should definitely be added to your version of Leatherhead, as I have done with mine. Sadly there will be one particularly messy Surrey seat however the new constituencies are configured in that county, primarily due to the awkward ward sizes in Elmbridge and Reigate. At least you have avoided splitting Horley.

[loderingo]

Jan 15, 2021 19:17:24 GMT islington said:

And here's another attempt at Berks and N Hants (with the rest of Hants as Pete Whitehead had it).

Slough - 75287. There's no satisfactory way of doing this.

Windsor - 74927. Yes, three UAs as usual.

Bracknell - 74347. Now contained entirely within the UA.

Maidenhead - 75291. Loses Hurst but otherwise unchanged.

Reading East - 76655. Unchanged.

Reading West - 72495. Loses Theale but otherwise unchanged.

Newbury - 72016.

Mid Berkshire - 72303. A fine specimen of the 'Mid' genre, I'm sure everyone will agree. It actually comprises most of the current Wokingham seat, but not Wokingham itself (see below), plus the wards squeezed out of Newbury, plus Hurst and Theale. But at least it does lie wholly within Berkshire.

Wokingham and Tadley - 70598. The cross-county seat. Other names are possible. An argument for this approach is that at least the Berks element has a clear focus on a substantial town. (The same can't be said for the Hants side but see below.)

Aldershot - 76765. Note the obligatory split of Yateley.

Fleet and Whitchurch - 76069.

Basingstoke - 70459.

North East Hampshire - 72623.

As a bonus, an alternative approach to Surrey is (mostly) visible. It puts Godalming into what is then much more of a S Surrey seat, with SW Surrey expanding into Guildford district.

Edited to add: Further tinkering reveals a possibility that anchors the cross-county seat in a substantial town on each side of the border. The cross-county seat could take the three wards of Fleet town in exchange for its Basingstoke & Deane wards. This would give Wokingham & Fleet (74158) and North Hampshire (for want of a better name) (72509). However, it does involve indulging the pretense that Fleet and Church Crookham are separate places.  

I'm not very keen on this one I'm afraid.  The 5 eastern boroughs are good for 7 seats exactly and you can then pair West berks with Hampshire.  I would post but am having trouble getting images to work