YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 18, 2021 18:06:50 GMT
Surrey (Dorking & Cranleigh is a bit of a mess):  My current attempt at Surrey is virtually identical to this, including the same Dorking & Cranleigh. I think the only differences I can see are in Elmbridge, where I put Weybridge in the seat with Leatherhead, allowing Esher & Walton to stay within its existing boundaries (though it must lose some territory). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2021 18:36:04 GMT
Surrey (Dorking & Cranleigh is a bit of a mess): My current attempt at Surrey is virtually identical to this, including the same Dorking & Cranleigh. I think the only differences I can see are in Elmbridge, where I put Weybridge in the seat with Leatherhead, allowing Esher & Walton to stay within its existing boundaries (though it must lose some territory). Not only is it a bit of a mess, it also extends into four districts - and just when we'd succeeded in eliminating the only other current 4-district seats, Arundel and C Devon.
On the whole I've come to prefer to adjust SW Surrey so as to get Godalming into the S Surrey seat (as I'd then call it), which makes it a bit more compact and keeps it out of Reigate & Banstead.
A couple of other quibbles -
The Send-Guildford link is not so bad as it looks - there is a road, but it's still better avoided if possible.
Also (this is not for the faint-hearted): your NW Surrey (or Surrey Heath) seat actually possesses an exclave. Close examination of the map shows that Bisley ward has a small detached part lying slightly east of the rest of the ward, sandwiched between Windlesham ward and the boundary with Woking. This is a genuine exclave, not a mapping error. You are absolutely at liberty to say that this is an absurdly trivial point and it doesn't bother you; but if it does bother you, and assuming you want to keep Woking coterminous with the district, then you have to find a way to keep Bisley and Windlesham in the same seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 18:49:34 GMT
Yeah I noticed that exclave and I have it in my plan. It's annoying and I don't remember this coming up in previous discussions we're had about exclaves, but evidently it's always been there
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 18, 2021 19:58:34 GMT
Not only is it a bit of a mess, it also extends into four districts - and just when we'd succeeded in eliminating the only other current 4-district seats, Arundel and C Devon. On the whole I've come to prefer to adjust SW Surrey so as to get Godalming into the S Surrey seat (as I'd then call it), which makes it a bit more compact and keeps it out of Reigate & Banstead.
A couple of other quibbles -
The Send-Guildford link is not so bad as it looks - there is a road, but it's still better avoided if possible. Also (this is not for the faint-hearted): your NW Surrey (or Surrey Heath) seat actually possesses an exclave. Close examination of the map shows that Bisley ward has a small detached part lying slightly east of the rest of the ward, sandwiched between Windlesham ward and the boundary with Woking. This is a genuine exclave, not a mapping error. You are absolutely at liberty to say that this is an absurdly trivial point and it doesn't bother you; but if it does bother you, and assuming you want to keep Woking coterminous with the district, then you have to find a way to keep Bisley and Windlesham in the same seat.
I don't mind creating a four district seat if I think it's really the best plan, but this one was definitely a weakness. I'm not personally bothered about the exclave -- either accept it or split the ward -- but I suspect the Commission might be; they have often stated quite explicitly that they don't propose constituencies with detached parts. (See also Milton on the edge of Cambridge.) So ... ... how about this?  1. Spelthorne (72,897) unchanged 2. Runnymede & Weybridge (72,552) basically just realigned to new ward boundaries, but loses its part of Oatlands & Burwood Park 3. Woking (71,737) coterminous with district 4. Surrey Heath (70,825) loses Ash wards, gains Pirbright and Normandy (the two Guildford wards currently in Woking) 5. Guildford (73,453) loses Pilgrims and all Waverley wards, gains areas further east within its district 6. South West Surrey (70,329) loses Godalming and adjacent areas, gains Ash wards and Pilgrims; perhaps Milford and Chiddingfold & Dunsfold should swap between this and seat 12 7. Leatherhead (69,806) two southern wards of Elmbridge, the northern part of Mole Valley and a couple of Reigate wards 8. Esher & Walton (73,280) loses two southern wards, Weybridge border realigned 9. Epsom & Ewell (70,849) loses Ashtead, gains Banstead Village 10. Reigate (70,274) as per other plans 11. East Surrey (73,145) again as per other plans 12. South SurreyDorking & Godalming (70,807) the Godalming and Cranleigh areas of Waverley, most of southern Mole Valley including Dorking, and a couple of left over Guildford wards The border between Leatherhead and South Surrey is a bit close to Dorking town for my liking, but otherwise this looks a little better, and fixes the exclave and has no four district seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2021 20:06:44 GMT
Whatever the boundaries of that seat I hope to God they don't call it 'South Surrey' - Surrey Hills would be better than that but it should be Dorking & Godalming or Dorking & Horley or whatever - or just Dorking
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 10:11:40 GMT
Not only is it a bit of a mess, it also extends into four districts - and just when we'd succeeded in eliminating the only other current 4-district seats, Arundel and C Devon. On the whole I've come to prefer to adjust SW Surrey so as to get Godalming into the S Surrey seat (as I'd then call it), which makes it a bit more compact and keeps it out of Reigate & Banstead.
A couple of other quibbles -
The Send-Guildford link is not so bad as it looks - there is a road, but it's still better avoided if possible. Also (this is not for the faint-hearted): your NW Surrey (or Surrey Heath) seat actually possesses an exclave. Close examination of the map shows that Bisley ward has a small detached part lying slightly east of the rest of the ward, sandwiched between Windlesham ward and the boundary with Woking. This is a genuine exclave, not a mapping error. You are absolutely at liberty to say that this is an absurdly trivial point and it doesn't bother you; but if it does bother you, and assuming you want to keep Woking coterminous with the district, then you have to find a way to keep Bisley and Windlesham in the same seat.
I don't mind creating a four district seat if I think it's really the best plan, but this one was definitely a weakness. I'm not personally bothered about the exclave -- either accept it or split the ward -- but I suspect the Commission might be; they have often stated quite explicitly that they don't propose constituencies with detached parts. (See also Milton on the edge of Cambridge.) So ... ... how about this? 1. Spelthorne (72,897) unchanged 2. Runnymede & Weybridge (72,552) basically just realigned to new ward boundaries, but loses its part of Oatlands & Burwood Park 3. Woking (71,737) coterminous with district 4. Surrey Heath (70,825) loses Ash wards, gains Pirbright and Normandy (the two Guildford wards currently in Woking) 5. Guildford (73,453) loses Pilgrims and all Waverley wards, gains areas further east within its district 6. South West Surrey (70,329) loses Godalming and adjacent areas, gains Ash wards and Pilgrims; perhaps Milford and Chiddingfold & Dunsfold should swap between this and seat 12 7. Leatherhead (69,806) two southern wards of Elmbridge, the northern part of Mole Valley and a couple of Reigate wards 8. Esher & Walton (73,280) loses two southern wards, Weybridge border realigned 9. Epsom & Ewell (70,849) loses Ashtead, gains Banstead Village 10. Reigate (70,274) as per other plans 11. East Surrey (73,145) again as per other plans 12. South SurreyDorking & Godalming (70,807) the Godalming and Cranleigh areas of Waverley, most of southern Mole Valley including Dorking, and a couple of left over Guildford wards The border between Leatherhead and South Surrey is a bit close to Dorking town for my liking, but otherwise this looks a little better, and fixes the exclave and has no four district seat. That is.... not bad.
I'm a little uneasy about the separation of Oatlands from Weybridge. Historically it's correct, because this area was originally in Walton parish; but I think nowadays its associations are more with Weybridge. However, this is a drawback, not a deal-breaker.
I favour YL's suggested swap of Milford and Chiddingfold, to keep Milford in the same seat as Godalming. I'd suggest a further exchange of Effingham and Shalford, which stops Effingham from being an awkward north-pointing finger of S Surrey and also nests Godalming more firmly into S Surrey.
Guildford: 71367 SW Surrey: 70276 S Surrey: 72946
The last of these could be called 'Dorking and Godalming' but in all honesty I don't see the objections to the name 'South Surrey', which is broadly geographically accurate and consistent with names adopted elsewhere in the county.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 10:27:02 GMT
The Banstead area is a bit of a mess in some of these plans (taking Banstead to include basically the five northern wards of Reigate & Banstead - this is split between three different seats)
Four-district constituencies are not ideal but are permissable I think if the alternatives are worse. Worth noting that Witham is likely to cover four districts (Braintree, Colchester, Maldon, Chelmsford) unless we go for my drastic and distinctly sub-optimal plan there (or EAL's sub-optimal alternative which splits Heybridge from Maldon). In other words a seat covering four districts is likely to be better than the alternatives and I think that may also be the case here
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 12:05:11 GMT
Not entirely sure whether it should go in this thread or in Pitchfork Bait, but I have come up with an 18 seat plan for Hampshire. Not by any stretch of the imagination a good one, but a legal one:  Portsmouth S 74253 Portsmouth N 76634 Gosport 73763 Fareham 72797 Hedge End & Southampton W 72846 Southampton N 76748 Southampton S 73240 Havant 72766 New Forest E 75311 New Forest W 75590 E Hampshire 76943 Meon Valley 76568 (includes 4 local authorities) Eastleigh & Romsey 76233 Winchester 74972 NW Hampshire 76155 Basingstoke 76948 NE Hampshire 74589 Aldershot 76765 If anybody can work out how to remove Sarisbury from Meon Valley, I'd love to see it - unless you could somehow convince the BCE that Portchester should go in the same seat as Gosport, I'm stumped. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 12:39:10 GMT
The Banstead area is a bit of a mess in some of these plans (taking Banstead to include basically the five northern wards of Reigate & Banstead - this is split between three different seats) Four-district constituencies are not ideal but are permissable I think if the alternatives are worse. Worth noting that Witham is likely to cover four districts (Braintree, Colchester, Maldon, Chelmsford) unless we go for my drastic and distinctly sub-optimal plan there (or EAL's sub-optimal alternative which splits Heybridge from Maldon). In other words a seat covering four districts is likely to be better than the alternatives and I think that may also be the case here Pete, I'm not sure why you'd say that when you've already posted an excellent plan for Essex that has Witham in only two districts (Braintree and Chelmsford) and also keeps Heybridge in the Maldon seat.
It was posted on 7 Jan at 5.09 pm if you want to remind yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 12:42:52 GMT
Not entirely sure whether it should go in this thread or in Pitchfork Bait, but I have come up with an 18 seat plan for Hampshire. Not by any stretch of the imagination a good one, but a legal one: Portsmouth S 74253 Portsmouth N 76634 Gosport 73763 Fareham 72797 Hedge End & Southampton W 72846 Southampton N 76748 Southampton S 73240 Havant 72766 New Forest E 75311 New Forest W 75590 E Hampshire 76943 Meon Valley 76568 (includes 4 local authorities) Eastleigh & Romsey 76233 Winchester 74972 NW Hampshire 76155 Basingstoke 76948 NE Hampshire 74589 Aldershot 76765 If anybody can work out how to remove Sarisbury from Meon Valley, I'd love to see it - unless you could somehow convince the BCE that Portchester should go in the same seat as Gosport, I'm stumped. I think the treatment of Southampton might raise a few eyebrows as well - but congrats all the same.
18 whole seats for Hants implies 9 whole seats for Berks, which I did actually devise a way of doing; but it was so gruesome, I never posted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 12:48:45 GMT
The Banstead area is a bit of a mess in some of these plans (taking Banstead to include basically the five northern wards of Reigate & Banstead - this is split between three different seats) Four-district constituencies are not ideal but are permissable I think if the alternatives are worse. Worth noting that Witham is likely to cover four districts (Braintree, Colchester, Maldon, Chelmsford) unless we go for my drastic and distinctly sub-optimal plan there (or EAL's sub-optimal alternative which splits Heybridge from Maldon). In other words a seat covering four districts is likely to be better than the alternatives and I think that may also be the case here Pete, I'm not sure why you'd say that when you've already posted an excellent plan for Essex that has Witham in only two districts (Braintree and Chelmsford) and also keeps Heybridge in the Maldon seat. It was posted on 7 Jan at 5.09 pm if you want to remind yourself.
I remember it (and as you just 'liked' the post in question my notifications have just led me back to it anyway.) I do think the plan is excellent generally and the Maldon seat particularly but I would maintain that the version of Witham envisaged there is sub-optimal because it extends down as far as South Woodham Ferrers and with the best will in the world there are no plausible connections there |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 13:04:26 GMT
Well, yes, but rather that than extending Witham across four LAs. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Anyway, here's a 9-seat Berks to go with EAL's 18-seat Hants.
 Edited to add: Or, you can reduce the boundary-crossings if you align Wokingham's eastern boundary with the UA boundary and switch Binfield ward from Bracknell to Maidenhead. Admittedly, the boundary between Maidenhead and Windsor is still unfortunate, and about the treatment of the Cippenhams the less said the better; but those blemishes aside (and are they really worse than Silchester?), this is starting to look like a tenable plan. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 19, 2021 13:16:00 GMT
Here is another 9 seat Berkshire. Given how quickly I knocked this up I suspect it's possible to make it a little less gruesome:
1. ETON & SLOUGH (70,000). Slough wards: all not in seat 2; Windsor & Maidenhead ward: Eton & Castle.
2. OLD WINDSOR & LANGLEY (70,026). Slough wards: Colnbrook with Poyle, Foxborough, Langley Kederminster, Langley St Mary's, Upton. Windsor & Maidenhead wards: Bray, Clewer & Dedworth East, Clewer & Dedworth West, Clewer East, Datchet et al, Old Windsor, Oldfield, St Mary's.
3. MAIDENHEAD (69,780). Windsor & Maidenhead wards: all not in seats 1, 2 and 4. Wokingham wards: Charvil, Coronation, Hurst, Loddon, Remenham et al, Sonning, Twyford.
4. BRACKNELL & ASCOT (70,157). Windsor & Maidenhead wards: Ascot & Sunninghill, Sunningdale & Cheapside. Bracknell Forest wards: all not in seat 5.
5. WOKINGHAM & SANDHURST (69,761). Bracknell Forest wards: Central Sandhurst, College Town, Crowthorne, Great Hollands South, Hanworth, Little Sandhurst & Wellington, Owlsmoor. Wokingham wards: Barkham, Emmbrook, Evendons, Finchampstead North, Norreys, Westcott, Wokingham Without.
6. READING EARLEY (70,766). Wokingham wards: all not in seats 3 and 5. Reading wards: Church, Park.
7. READING CENTRAL (72,459). Reading wards: all not in seats 6 and 8.
8. READING THEALE (70,172). Reading wards: Minster, Southcote, Whitley. West Berkshire wards: Aldermaston, Basildon, Bradfield, Bucklebury, Burghfield & Mortimer, Pangbourne, Ridgeway, Theale, Theale, Tilehurst & Purley, Tilehurst Birch Copse, Tilehurst South & Holybrook.
9. NEWBURY (72,016). West Berkshire wards: all not in seat 8.
If I were really trying to argue in its favour I could point out that no seat contains parts of more than two of the UAs, there's a seat wholly within Reading, and indeed the west isn't really that bad. But I don't think I will...
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 13:48:11 GMT
I found an arrangement that gives 4 seats to Bracknell Forest, Windsor & Maidenhead and Slough, and five to the rest of Berkshire. Such a pity it's an awful, awful plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 15:15:24 GMT
Another take on an 18-seat Hants.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 15:19:06 GMT
I think all this just serves to prove the wisdom of the 'Silchester solution' - one seat that admittedly isn't great, but 26 others which are pretty decent
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 19, 2021 15:55:46 GMT
I've taken another crack at Kent:  Dartford 76169 Gravesend 72866 Sevenoaks 75664 Tunbridge Wells 72622 Tonbridge & Malling 76489 Aylesford & Strood 72760 Rochester & Chatham 73489 Gillingham & Rainham 73951 Maidstone 76367 Mid Kent 69784 Sittingbourne & Sheppey 76818 Faversham & Tenterden 70439 Canterbury 72647 North Thanet 71829 South Thanet 71986 Dover 75855 Ashford 75342 Folkestone & Hythe 70023 West Kent isn't terribly different from a lot of maps here. I've recreated Rochester & Chatham, but that's purely wishful thinking on my part (and if you were trying to gerrymander a winnable seat there these days, Gillingham and Chatham is probably a more plausible option.) The boundaries round Maidstone look a little odd, but I'd stand by them - if you zoom in, you'll see a lot of neater-looking maps split Weavering in healf, which this plan avoids. In East Kent, a lot of other plans split up Canterbury unnecessarily, in ways that don't look that subtle to me. Faversham and Tenterden is not a very good seat, but I don't think it's any worse than the standard of boundaries we've come to expect in that bit of the county. It is also possible, with a few minor changes elsewhere, for the two mid-county seats to swap their portions of Swale and Tunbridge Wells districts, which probably moves fewer electors than this plan would. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 16:29:09 GMT
I think all this just serves to prove the wisdom of the 'Silchester solution' - one seat that admittedly isn't great, but 26 others which are pretty decent Well, I'm not so sure. I'd like to carry on tinkering with the 9/18 solution with no cross-county seat.
I've further refined the Hants map I posted earlier. Bishop's Waltham and Whiteley into the Hedge End seat (or whatever you want to call it); Winchester can then be completely redrawn to comprise the whole LA except those two wards and Southwick, a huge improvement on what I had above; E Hants then takes the rest of Meon Valley and the sourthern half of E Hants LA up to and including Grayshott; leaving a reasonably compact Alton seat taking in the rest of E Hants LA, Odiham, Hook and the southern three wards of Basingstoke & Deane.
Pete - you're good at this. And so are countless other contributors to the site. I appeal to you all. Is it really beyond our combined ingenuity to devise a workable 9/18 solution and consign Silchester and Wokingham & Fleet to the oblivion they deserve?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 16:34:59 GMT
I actually haven't tried an 18 seat Hampshire yet so will have a play with that. Berkshire I have tried for 9 seats and I'm not getting involved with that again
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 19, 2021 16:42:51 GMT
I found an arrangement that gives 4 seats to Bracknell Forest, Windsor & Maidenhead and Slough, and five to the rest of Berkshire. Such a pity it's an awful, awful plan. EAL, please post - even if it's as bad as you say, these things are always interesting to see and it may spark a bright idea in someone else.
Put it in 'Pitchfork' if it's as bad as all that.
|
|
