|
|
Post by islington on Jan 17, 2021 13:45:14 GMT
Hmm... Might look like this, actually.
Any takers?
 Wokingham - 76571. Reading East - 76655. As before, unchanged. Reading West - 74838. Now retaining Theale and thus unchanged. West Berkshire - 75305.
Newbury and Andover - 75757. North West Hampshire - 73545. Every plan must have its monstrosity and this is it, but at least it's all in the same county. It might be 'Kingsclere and Stockbridge' or a dozen other possibilities. Basingstoke - 71278. As many others have had it. North East Hampshire - 71963. With Fleet and Church Crookham kept together and Yateley united. Aldershot - 70039. Unchanged. Winchester - 73516. South East Hampshire - 70831. I'm taking the opportunity to change an unsatisfactory name.
The rest of Hants as Pete Whitehead had it.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 17, 2021 13:49:56 GMT
That strikes me as an excellent argument for Bradfield and Tadley. You're not going to build an identity by sticking two towns together at random without giving them anything to share an identity round. If that's your aim, you might as well just rename the cross-border seat as 'M3/M4 corridor' and have done with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 17, 2021 14:23:52 GMT
I can't believe we missed for so long that Aldershot was already in quota and didn't need to split Yately, Fleet or anywhere else. Was I responsible foe that bit of fake news?
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jan 17, 2021 14:32:48 GMT
I can't believe we missed for so long that Aldershot was already in quota and didn't need to split Yately, Fleet or anywhere else. Was I responsible foe that bit of fake news? We don't need to split Yateley. But, if we have Blackwater and Hawley in a different seat to Yateley East, we end up splitting Blackwater. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 17, 2021 14:49:45 GMT
We can live with that I think
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 17, 2021 15:00:20 GMT
That strikes me as an excellent argument for Bradfield and Tadley. You're not going to build an identity by sticking two towns together at random without giving them anything to share an identity round. If that's your aim, you might as well just rename the cross-border seat as 'M3/M4 corridor' and have done with it. Well, EAL, if you're criticizing Newbury & Andover, I rather agree with you, which is why I previously suggested, and still prefer, the Wokingham/Fleet pairing. I've never claimed it was perfect but, for all its faults, it is relatively compact and its two main towns do, as you suggest, have a certain amount in common - definitely more so than Newbury and Andover.
But as for Bradfield and Tadley, or 'Silchester and Aldermaston' as its advocates will probably end up calling it on the grounds that these are the only two places within its boundaries that most people have ever heard of, it has far worse characteristics in terms of drawing together random bits of Berks and Hants countryside together with equally random suburbs of Reading and Basingstoke, places that have nothing whatesoever in common; plus in many versions posted here (not all) it extends into three upper-tier authorities ...
I could go on but, perhaps fortunately, words fail me ...
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 17, 2021 15:05:20 GMT
I think 'Silchester' is a bad seat, but crucially it's one bad seat and it's possible to make the other seats round it work reasonably well. Whereas 'Wokingham and Fleet' is one of two or three bad seats on the map. In terms of being a mixture of outer-suburban and rural areas looking to several different towns, 'Silchester' isn't really worse than Meon Valley. The problem is that it crosses a county boundary, but I think we've established that if you're pairing Berkshire and Hampshire the best you can do is to be less bad than the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 17, 2021 15:12:34 GMT
If you're going to call it Silchester , why not go the whole hog and give its proper name as Calleva Atrebatum.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 17, 2021 15:50:25 GMT
I think 'Silchester' is a bad seat, but crucially it's one bad seat and it's possible to make the other seats round it work reasonably well. Whereas 'Wokingham and Fleet' is one of two or three bad seats on the map. In terms of being a mixture of outer-suburban and rural areas looking to several different towns, 'Silchester' isn't really worse than Meon Valley. The problem is that it crosses a county boundary, but I think we've established that if you're pairing Berkshire and Hampshire the best you can do is to be less bad than the alternatives. Well, EAL, that's more or less what I say about Wokingham and Fleet. It's a bad seat, but it allows the creation of much better seats elsewhere. Look at the map I posted yesterday (3.07pm). Newbury is excellent; North Hampshire makes perfect sense; and I really don't think there would have been serious objections to my 'Reading peripheries' seat if I'd called it 'Theale and Winnersh' (or whatever) instead of resorting to the dreaded 'Mid'.
And when I say Wokingham & Fleet is a bad seat, I mean it's ordinarily bad, the sort of bad seat that unavoidably emerges from every review. Silchester, by contrast, is epically bad. Meon Valley is perfection compared with it.
Anyway, let's move on. Have a map of Sussex.
 Chichester - 76401 Bognor Regis - 76431 Arundel - 75289 Worthing - 76497 Shoreham - 73139 Horsham - 72529 Crawley - 74446 (sorry, forgot to add to map)
Mid Sussex - 75385 Hove - 73726 Brighton Pavilion - 75850 Brighton Kemptown - 69737 Lewes - 72542 East Grinstead - 74961 Hailsham - 73510 Eastbourne - 73322 Bexhill and Battle - 73426 Hastings and Rye - 75581
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 17, 2021 15:51:40 GMT
If you're going to call it Silchester , why not go the whole hog and give its proper name as Calleva Atrebatum. Can we rename Salisbury "Old Sarum"? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 17, 2021 16:25:16 GMT
That strikes me as an excellent argument for Bradfield and Tadley. You're not going to build an identity by sticking two towns together at random without giving them anything to share an identity round. If that's your aim, you might as well just rename the cross-border seat as 'M3/M4 corridor' and have done with it. Well, EAL, if you're criticizing Newbury & Andover, I rather agree with you, which is why I previously suggested, and still prefer, the Wokingham/Fleet pairing. I've never claimed it was perfect but, for all its faults, it is relatively compact and its two main towns do, as you suggest, have a certain amount in common - definitely more so than Newbury and Andover. But as for Bradfield and Tadley, or 'Silchester and Aldermaston' as its advocates will probably end up calling it on the grounds that these are the only two places within its boundaries that most people have ever heard of, it has far worse characteristics in terms of drawing together random bits of Berks and Hants countryside together with equally random suburbs of Reading and Basingstoke, places that have nothing whatesoever in common; plus in many versions posted here (not all) it extends into three upper-tier authorities ... I could go on but, perhaps fortunately, words fail me ...
The three authorities problem (such as it is - not a big deal to me personally) can be solved thus  It does involve a quite radical redrawing of the Reading seats but I personally don't mind that (others might). The rest of Hampshire is as usual.. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 17, 2021 16:35:01 GMT
If you're going to call it Silchester , why not go the whole hog and give its proper name as Calleva Atrebatum. Can we rename Salisbury "Old Sarum"? How about "Mid-Sarum"? |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jan 17, 2021 17:13:04 GMT
I think 'Silchester' is a bad seat, but crucially it's one bad seat and it's possible to make the other seats round it work reasonably well. Whereas 'Wokingham and Fleet' is one of two or three bad seats on the map. In terms of being a mixture of outer-suburban and rural areas looking to several different towns, 'Silchester' isn't really worse than Meon Valley. The problem is that it crosses a county boundary, but I think we've established that if you're pairing Berkshire and Hampshire the best you can do is to be less bad than the alternatives. Well, EAL, that's more or less what I say about Wokingham and Fleet. It's a bad seat, but it allows the creation of much better seats elsewhere. Look at the map I posted yesterday (3.07pm). Newbury is excellent; North Hampshire makes perfect sense; and I really don't think there would have been serious objections to my 'Reading peripheries' seat if I'd called it 'Theale and Winnersh' (or whatever) instead of resorting to the dreaded 'Mid'.
And when I say Wokingham & Fleet is a bad seat, I mean it's ordinarily bad, the sort of bad seat that unavoidably emerges from every review. Silchester, by contrast, is epically bad. Meon Valley is perfection compared with it.
Anyway, let's move on. Have a map of Sussex.
Chichester - 76401 Bognor Regis - 76431 Arundel - 75289 Worthing - 76497 Shoreham - 73139 Horsham - 72529 Crawley - 74446 (sorry, forgot to add to map)
Mid Sussex - 75385 Hove - 73726 Brighton Pavilion - 75850 Brighton Kemptown - 69737 Lewes - 72542 East Grinstead - 74961 Hailsham - 73510 Eastbourne - 73322 Bexhill and Battle - 73426 Hastings and Rye - 75581
Putting Lindfield in the East Grinstead seat really doesn't make much sense - it really is part of Haywards Heath (there's no separation between them "on the ground"), so really needs to be in the Mid Sussex seat with HH.
I can't say I'm a particular fan of the treatment of Wealden in general - splitting the district between four seats and separating all three of the larger towns isn't ideal. Uckfield certainly has to go somewhere, but it tying it to Lewes doesn't seem especially natural (although I appreciate the awkward shape of Danehill & Fletching makes it look worse than it is).
I'm broadly persuaded that putting the "cross-sussex" seat around East Grinstead isn't bad, however - the NW of Wealden (Forest Row and surroundings) does look to East Grinstead, so putting it in a seat together makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 17, 2021 18:00:45 GMT
Here's my offering for Sussex. Not sure sure whether there's anything here that's new. Brighton and Worthing largely unchanged.   |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 17, 2021 20:00:13 GMT
Here's my offering for Sussex. Not sure sure whether there's anything here that's new.Brighton and Worthing largely unchanged. Well, I have not seen an "East Grinstead & Uckfield" proposal so far, nor a Littlehampton seat shaped like that. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 17, 2021 22:08:15 GMT
This is my attempt at Sussex. It looks quite similar to mattb 's map.  Brighton & Hove +Hove (73,726) unchanged Brighton Pavilion (75,850) Brighton East (69,737) Rest of East Sussex and the cross-border seatHastings & Rye (75,581) as per just about everyone else Bexhill & Battle (76,540) Eastbourne (73,322) becomes coterminous with the borough Wealden (76,316) tempted to rename this "Crowborough & Hailsham" Lewes (75,091) I tried to unite that Polegate/Willingdon area north of Eastbourne in this. The north-western boundary is a bit untidy. Haywards Heath & East Grinstead (74,206) The cross-border seat. I'd like to acknowledge this in the name, but both major centres are in West Sussex. Rest of West SussexBurgess Hill (76,950) Replaces Mid Sussex Worthing East & Shoreham (75,466) unchanged Worthing West (76,293) Crawley (74,446) unchanged Horsham (72,529) Littlehampton & Arundel (71,034) replaces Arundel & South Downs, and gains a shoreline Bognor Regis (72,278) shifts west, losing Littlehampton Chichester (73,407) |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 17, 2021 23:18:54 GMT
Here are my attempts for the rest of SE. Kent (the three eastern seats are unchanged):  Surrey (Dorking & Cranleigh is a bit of a mess):  Oxon/Bucks (may well be the same as others):  |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jan 18, 2021 9:36:11 GMT
Haywards Heath & East Grinstead (74,206) The cross-border seat. I'd like to acknowledge this in the name, but both major centres are in West Sussex. East West Sussex & West East Sussex? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 9:57:38 GMT
Haywards Heath & East Grinstead (74,206) The cross-border seat. I'd like to acknowledge this in the name, but both major centres are in West Sussex. East West Sussex & West East Sussex? Well, from 1868 to 1885 there was a constituency of East West Yorkshire.
It was officially the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, although I can't help feeling that 'Mid Yorkshire' would actually have been a perfectly reasonable name for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 17:32:11 GMT
East Anglian Lefty posting on the Pitchfork thread vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1048893 showed how the map of Surrey is so much improved by not adding any Reigate & Banstead wards to Tandridge to keep East Surrey in quota. It then occurred to me that adding Edenbridge would be a sensible version of this approach. Though Kent is fine on its own for 18 seats and there is no need for it to contribute to any cross county seat, I don't know that there is any reason why it therefore may not (it has 18.05 quotas - Buckinghamshire has 8.00 but there has been plenty of discussion here about linking it with Berkshire via Slough to help make more sensible seats there, so I presume there is no prejudice here against doing that. The attitude of the BCE may be different of course). I tested this against mattb 's excellent Kent plan and found the only changes occasioned by the loss of Edenbridge were that Tunbridge Wells needed to gain Brenchley & Horsmorden in compensation and in turn Tenterden would need to take Barming from Maidstone and Leeds from the Mid Kent seat. I have made a couple of other changes to the respective plans but these are incidental to the overall scheme. In Surrey I have linked Guidlford with Godalming which makes both it and the Dorking based seat look neater (but has the downside that Dorking & Horley includes parts of four different districts). In Kent I have made some changes in the North so that Dartford's excess electorate is sorted out by adding Ebbsfleet to Gravesham/Gravesend and therefor averts the need to interfere with the boundaries of Sevenoaks and Medway boroughs. Within Medway I choose to move the River ward rather than Rochester South into the Chatham & Aylesford seat. Though Matt's arrangement looks more elegant on a map, Rochester South is primarily part of Rochester while River, though including parts of all the three main Medway towns is primarily a Chatham ward, including much of the town centre and the dockyard. Of course Rochester and Chatham run into each other so much that my preferred option would be to recreate Rochester & Chatham and link the wards West of the Medway with the Tonbridge & Malling wards (though in that case including the two Snodland wards rather than the two Larkfield wards) in an effective 'Strood & Aylesford' seat (which I would actually call Medway). But I suspect such a radical change would be seen as unnecessary.  
|
|
