|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 10, 2021 10:08:30 GMT
What are the numbers for that? It would be better not to cross the M4 to the north of Bridgend (those places just north of the M4 really run into one another) and just add the three Pencoed wards to the east if that doesn't push Aberavon over the upper limit? And if it does, can it be remedied by putting Briton Ferry into Neath (then Clydach into B&R, then the two GCG wards into Carmarthen, perhaps...)? I should have posted the numbers, which are: Bridgend 75302; Aberavon & Ogmore Vale 75878. The BCW's proposed B&R seat, including the Swansea Valley wards, is 72113 so it can't take Clydach. Swansea + NPT (without the Swansea Valley) + Bridgend = 373234 = 5.15 so it can receive 5 seats (as it does in the BCW scheme) but you have to err on the large side. If you take the current Aberavon seat, minus the three Coadffranc wards, together with Bridgend UA you have 151180 electors, who can form two largish seats either as I posted above or (probably better) as suggested by Penddu just upthread, whose numbers are: Aberavon 74734; Bridgend 76446. (Assuming no ward split.)
This leaves you with the rest of NPT plus Swansea, total 227054. You could slice Swansea itself three ways as the BCW suggests, but I prefer to keep viable Gower and Neath seats and have a single 'small Swansea' seat that still contains the heart of the town. I posted this on Wednesday at 12:12 - it's at the top of page 15. Note that the electorates are Gower 76801, Swansea 73412, Neath 76841, so it's all averaging on the high side.
That's why I suggested putting the two GCG wards into Carmarthen – it would take the pressure to go large off the entire area. I agree with you about having a core Swansea seat and maintaining something that looks more like Gower. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 10, 2021 10:24:26 GMT
Another bizarre proposal is to place Llangunnor ward into Llanelli instead of Caerfyrddin. This splits Carmarthen town unneccesarily (including railway station) and simply moving Llangunnor into Caerfyrddin keeps both seats within quota.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 10, 2021 10:27:40 GMT
I should have posted the numbers, which are: Bridgend 75302; Aberavon & Ogmore Vale 75878. The BCW's proposed B&R seat, including the Swansea Valley wards, is 72113 so it can't take Clydach. Swansea + NPT (without the Swansea Valley) + Bridgend = 373234 = 5.15 so it can receive 5 seats (as it does in the BCW scheme) but you have to err on the large side. If you take the current Aberavon seat, minus the three Coadffranc wards, together with Bridgend UA you have 151180 electors, who can form two largish seats either as I posted above or (probably better) as suggested by Penddu just upthread, whose numbers are: Aberavon 74734; Bridgend 76446. (Assuming no ward split.)
This leaves you with the rest of NPT plus Swansea, total 227054. You could slice Swansea itself three ways as the BCW suggests, but I prefer to keep viable Gower and Neath seats and have a single 'small Swansea' seat that still contains the heart of the town. I posted this on Wednesday at 12:12 - it's at the top of page 15. Note that the electorates are Gower 76801, Swansea 73412, Neath 76841, so it's all averaging on the high side.
That's why I suggested putting the two GCG wards into Carmarthen – it would take the pressure to go large off the entire area. I agree with you about having a core Swansea seat and maintaining something that looks more like Gower. Yes, but it's another boundary-crossing (two more if you switch Clydach as well) and I don't see what problem you're trying to solve by doing it. It would balance up below-average Carmarthenshire (1.94 = 2) with the above average Swansea-to-Bridgend grouping (5.15 = 5) but the imbalance doesn't seem to cause any practical problems in drawing reasonable boundaries. Admittedly the two in Carmarthenshire are both below average, and the other five are all above, but I don't think that's a problem because the only obligation is to get within range, not to aim for the centre of the range.
As for Clydach, I agree it's not brilliantly placed in my proposed Neath seat but it fits at least as well as it would in an a B&R seat that also includes Knighton and Rhyader, and I'd point out that it's also somewhat out on a limb in the current Gower seat: it seems it's one of those 'in-between' places that is destined always to be on the margins of whichever seat it ends up in.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 10, 2021 10:34:06 GMT
That's why I suggested putting the two GCG wards into Carmarthen – it would take the pressure to go large off the entire area. I agree with you about having a core Swansea seat and maintaining something that looks more like Gower. Yes, but it's another boundary-crossing (two more if you switch Clydach as well) and I don't see what problem you're trying to solve by doing it. It would balance up below-average Carmarthenshire (1.94 = 2) with the above average Swansea-to-Bridgend grouping (5.15 = 5) but the imbalance doesn't seem to cause any practical problems in drawing reasonable boundaries. Admittedly the two in Carmarthenshire are both below average, and the other five are all above, but I don't think that's a problem because the only obligation is to get within range, not to aim for the centre of the range.
As for Clydach, I agree it's not brilliantly placed in my proposed Neath seat but it fits at least as well as it would in an a B&R seat that also includes Knighton and Rhyader, and I'd point out that it's also somewhat out on a limb in the current Gower seat: it seems it's one of those 'in-between' places that is destined always to be on the margins of whichever seat it ends up in.
The Commission doesn't seem to be averse to crossing an additional boundary where it solves what it sees to be a problem elsewhere – see Nelson, Taff's Well, Pontyclun, those three Denbighshire wards lumped in with Montgomeryshire in addition to a chunk of Wrexham, the two Wrexham wards then knocked on into Alyn and Deeside, and so on. Moving GCG out of the mix so that Briton Ferry and Coedffranc communities are kept together (and put back into Neath where they belong) is a classic local ties argument. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 10, 2021 11:57:03 GMT
Yes, but it's another boundary-crossing (two more if you switch Clydach as well) and I don't see what problem you're trying to solve by doing it. It would balance up below-average Carmarthenshire (1.94 = 2) with the above average Swansea-to-Bridgend grouping (5.15 = 5) but the imbalance doesn't seem to cause any practical problems in drawing reasonable boundaries. Admittedly the two in Carmarthenshire are both below average, and the other five are all above, but I don't think that's a problem because the only obligation is to get within range, not to aim for the centre of the range.
As for Clydach, I agree it's not brilliantly placed in my proposed Neath seat but it fits at least as well as it would in an a B&R seat that also includes Knighton and Rhyader, and I'd point out that it's also somewhat out on a limb in the current Gower seat: it seems it's one of those 'in-between' places that is destined always to be on the margins of whichever seat it ends up in.
where it solves what it sees to be a problem elsewhere – see Nelson, Taff's Well, Pontyclun, those three Denbighshire wards lumped in with Montgomeryshire in addition to a chunk of Wrexham, the two Wrexham wards then knocked on into Alyn and Deeside, and so on. Moving GCG out of the mix so that Briton Ferry and Coedffranc communities are kept together (and put back into Neath where they belong) is a classic local ties argument. Well yes, that's true, but that's one my main reservations about the BCW scheme: I feel there are too many such crossings.
A lot of them are in places where they can be avoided by quite small adjustments elsewhere (although admittedly in north Wales a more substantial redrawing is needed).
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 10, 2021 15:49:50 GMT
On the assumption that Powys-either-side-of-the-Berwyns will once again be impossible to dislodge... what are the worst howlers of the commission's map for the NE Wales and the North Coast and what howlers can be fixed without jettisoning the basic plan? If by "the basic plan" you mean giving an irrational priority to saving a particular MP from Eltham, Kent, from finding another constituency to stand in, despite the effects on every single constituency in Clwyd, probably the least awful version looks like this:  1 Montgomeryshire and Chirkland · Sir Drefaldwyn a Swydd y Waun 73841 Yes 2 Wrexham · Wrecsam 72977 Yes 3 East Flintshire · Dwyrain Sir y Fflint 76651 Yes 4 West Flintshire · Gorllewin Sir y Fflint 76057 Yes 5 Clwyd West · Gorllewin Clwyd 71793 Yes 6 Aberconwy 75306 Yes 7 Barmouth and Butlins · Gwlad y Trenau Bychain 69803 Yes |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,854 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 10, 2021 18:44:31 GMT
Your map looks convincing. But its hidden problem is, that You too must expand B&R (or Llanelli) into Glamorgan. I'd reluctantly go along with the BCW's version of B&R, including the Swansea Valley area.  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,854
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 10, 2021 18:46:56 GMT
Rock solid (swing of 10% or more to change hands)Conservative WINS: Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr (30% majority)Labour WINS: Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (29% majority), Cardiff Central (38% majority), Cardiff South and Penarth (22% majority), Cardiff West (23% majority), Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (31% majority), Pontypridd (20% majority), Rhondda (32% majority)Plaid WINS: Dwyfor Meirionnydd (21% majority)Liable to change hands (swing of between 5% and 10% to change hands)Conservative WINS: Brecon and Radnorshire (19% majority), Carmarthen (12% majority), Clwyd (11% majority), Mid and South Pembrokeshire (15% majority), Monmouthshire (16% majority), Labour WINS: Aberafan Porthcawl (17% majority), Bridgend (12% majority), Cardiff North (13% majority), Islwyn (16% majority), Swansea Central and North (20% majority), Swansea East and Neath (19% majority), Swansea West and Gower (10% majority)Plaid WINS: Battlegrounds (swing of between 1% and 5% to change hands)Conservative WINS: Aberconwy (2.15% majority), Delyn (4.36% majority), Vale of Glamorgan (6.50% majority), Wrexham (5.35% majority), Ynys Môn (5.38% majority)Labour WINS: Llanelli (7.79% majority), Newport East (4.07% majority), Newport West and Carephilly (9.57% majority), Torfaen (5.93% majority), Plaid WINS: Too close to calls
Alyn and Deeside: Con 21,431, Lab 21,434, Lib Dem 2,950, Reform 3,035, Plaid 1,806
Ceredigion Preseli: Con 15,894, Lab 11,671, Lib Dem 7,612, Reform 2,063, Green 663, Plaid 16,119
Providing the numbers&methods would be fine... |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 10, 2021 19:43:47 GMT
I think the main objection to pairing Merionethshire with Montgomeryshire has always been the desire to avoid a (west) coast-to-border seat. Nothing to do with the two counties being considered culturally incompatible or anything like that. I've never understood this objection. On one level, it's much more compact than Brecon and Radnorshire (let alone the statutory maximum area); on another, Montgomeryshire already reaches the Dyfi Estuary west of Machynlleth. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,854
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 10, 2021 20:59:04 GMT
I think the main objection to pairing Merionethshire with Montgomeryshire has always been the desire to avoid a (west) coast-to-border seat. Nothing to do with the two counties being considered culturally incompatible or anything like that. I've never understood this objection. On one level, it's much more compact than Brecon and Radnorshire (let alone the statutory maximum area); on another, Montgomeryshire already reaches the Dyfi Estuary west of Machynlleth. When i saw Your map on page 1, i immediately "liked" it, as it looked so soundly (at least in the N&M). Yet, i also saw immediately B&R extending into Glamorgan, what was&is hard to accept. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 10, 2021 21:43:25 GMT
I've never understood this objection. On one level, it's much more compact than Brecon and Radnorshire (let alone the statutory maximum area); on another, Montgomeryshire already reaches the Dyfi Estuary west of Machynlleth. When i saw Your map on page 1, i immediately "liked" it, as it looked so soundly (at least in the N&M). Yet, i also saw immediately B&R extending into Glamorgan, what was&is hard to accept. This is a case where I'm inclined to accept a questionable BCW proposal essentially on the grounds that the alternatives seem worse. After all, B&R needs extra voters from somewhere and as it already extends as far as Ystradgynlais, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to go a bit further down the Swansea Valley - and besides, what's the alternative?
The other such case is the BCW version of Rhondda. I entirely take the point that, pace the BCW report, the sourthern end of the seat is inaccessible by road from the rest of it; but I can't find a way of rectifying this without seriously disrupting surrounding seats and ending up with a less satisfactory map overall, so I'm inclined to put up with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 10, 2021 21:52:15 GMT
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 10, 2021 23:21:24 GMT
I think the BCW initial proposals are actually better than those for any BCE region.
My biggest problem is in the North, where obviously they should've built everything around a single, self-contained Denbighshire seat rather than smushing it up like an aborted foetus.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,854
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 11, 2021 2:56:16 GMT
When i saw Your map on page 1, i immediately "liked" it, as it looked so soundly (at least in the N&M). Yet, i also saw immediately B&R extending into Glamorgan, what was&is hard to accept. This is a case where I'm inclined to accept a questionable BCW proposal essentially on the grounds that the alternatives seem worse. After all, B&R needs extra voters from somewhere and as it already extends as far as Ystradgynlais, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to go a bit further down the Swansea Valley - and besides, what's the alternative?
The other such case is the BCW version of Rhondda. I entirely take the point that, pace the BCW report, the sourthern end of the seat is inaccessible by road from the rest of it; but I can't find a way of rectifying this without seriously disrupting surrounding seats and ending up with a less satisfactory map overall, so I'm inclined to put up with it.
Well, in my "perfect" world, red Ystragynlais would be put to a restored Glamorgan[shire] and all seats would get distributed to ceremonial counties enshrined by a 2/3-maj. in some kind of electoral constitution and within these units a very high flexibility (+-20%) would exist & enable sensible boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by aberdarian on Sept 11, 2021 6:16:44 GMT
This is a case where I'm inclined to accept a questionable BCW proposal essentially on the grounds that the alternatives seem worse. After all, B&R needs extra voters from somewhere and as it already extends as far as Ystradgynlais, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to go a bit further down the Swansea Valley - and besides, what's the alternative?
The other such case is the BCW version of Rhondda. I entirely take the point that, pace the BCW report, the sourthern end of the seat is inaccessible by road from the rest of it; but I can't find a way of rectifying this without seriously disrupting surrounding seats and ending up with a less satisfactory map overall, so I'm inclined to put up with it.
Well, in my "perfect" world, red Ystragynlais would be put to a restored Glamorgan[shire] and all seats would get distributed to ceremonial counties enshrined by a 2/3-maj. in some kind of electoral constitution and within these units a very high flexibility (+-20%) would exist & enable sensible boundaries. I might have misunderstood this but, as far as I'm aware, Ystradgynlais was always in Breconshire/Brecknock wasn't it? Well before 1974. It was Breconshire that lost territory to Glamorgan & Gwent, not the other way round. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Sept 11, 2021 10:29:03 GMT
This is a case where I'm inclined to accept a questionable BCW proposal essentially on the grounds that the alternatives seem worse. After all, B&R needs extra voters from somewhere and as it already extends as far as Ystradgynlais, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to go a bit further down the Swansea Valley - and besides, what's the alternative? Well, as seen upthread it is quite possible to allocate 8 whole seats to north Wales plus Powys, 4 to Dyfed, 13 to Glamorgan and 6 to Gwent, but that would involve splitting Montgomeryshire, which would cause 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ and maybe others to get their pitchforks out (though it does not to me seem worse than having a seat stretching from Knighton to Clydach). If you want an out there alternative, I'd observe that Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire are actually the right size for a seat, and Brecon could then go with eastern Carmarthenshire or perhaps even Monmouth. But fitting the rest of Wales round that involves some "interesting" features, in particular a "Glannau Dyfi" arrangement of (most of) Meirionnydd and Ceredigion. I'm not convinced there are really any good options for what to put with the Rhondda anyway, assuming you don't want to split Pontypridd. My plan put it with Mountain Ash, which is over in another valley. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 11, 2021 10:44:31 GMT
The other such case is the BCW version of Rhondda. I entirely take the point that, pace the BCW report, the sourthern end of the seat is inaccessible by road from the rest of it; but I can't find a way of rectifying this without seriously disrupting surrounding seats and ending up with a less satisfactory map overall, so I'm inclined to put up with it.
The only not wholly unreasonable solution for 5 constituencies in the former Mid-Glamorgan+Afan-Borough I can see that respects the east-west nature of Llanharan's communication links involves a double boundary crossing with Bridgend:  1 Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare 74805 Yes 2 Pontypridd 76224 Yes 3 Rhondda 73557 Yes 4 Bridgend 71964 Yes 5 Aberavon and Maesteg 69941 Yes Probably a bit too radical, although it makes good sense on the ground. Really the issue is that Llanharan should be in Bridgend CB. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 11, 2021 17:03:20 GMT
The other such case is the BCW version of Rhondda. I entirely take the point that, pace the BCW report, the sourthern end of the seat is inaccessible by road from the rest of it; but I can't find a way of rectifying this without seriously disrupting surrounding seats and ending up with a less satisfactory map overall, so I'm inclined to put up with it.
The only not wholly unreasonable solution for 5 constituencies in the former Mid-Glamorgan+Afan-Borough I can see that respects the east-west nature of Llanharan's communication links involves a double boundary crossing with Bridgend: 1 Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare 74805 Yes 2 Pontypridd 76224 Yes 3 Rhondda 73557 Yes 4 Bridgend 71964 Yes 5 Aberavon and Maesteg 69941 Yes Probably a bit too radical, although it makes good sense on the ground. Really the issue is that Llanharan should be in Bridgend CB.
The main issues I have with this are that the remainder of Neath Port Talbot would be undersized and have knock-on consequences, and there are unnecessary LA crossings.
(I also absolutely fucking detest the fact that Rhondda ward isn't in the Rhondda seat, but that's true on the current boundaries too. A total nonsense.)
This is my plan for that area - with some flexibility for ward swapping between the Bridgend South and Bridgend North and Port Talbot seats.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,854
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 12, 2021 1:36:15 GMT
The only not wholly unreasonable solution for 5 constituencies in the former Mid-Glamorgan+Afan-Borough I can see that respects the east-west nature of Llanharan's communication links involves a double boundary crossing with Bridgend: 1 Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare 74805 Yes 2 Pontypridd 76224 Yes 3 Rhondda 73557 Yes 4 Bridgend 71964 Yes 5 Aberavon and Maesteg 69941 Yes Probably a bit too radical, although it makes good sense on the ground. Really the issue is that Llanharan should be in Bridgend CB.
The main issues I have with this are that the remainder of Neath Port Talbot would be undersized and have knock-on consequences, and there are unnecessary LA crossings.
(I also absolutely fucking detest the fact that Rhondda ward isn't in the Rhondda seat, but that's true on the current boundaries too. A total nonsense.)
This is my plan for that area - with some flexibility for ward swapping between the Bridgend South and Bridgend North and Port Talbot seats.
But if we look at the quotas of present-day LocalAuthorities:  ...should we then not begin in the east, because Monmouth&Torfaen are givens, Newport&Caerphilly&BlaenauGwent sum up to 4.05 (with Monmouth&Torfaen 6.00!), MerthyrT.&Rhondda&CT are 3.00; what leaves Cardiff 3.44 plus VoG 1.36 = 4.80. Taking away ~0.20 from Bridgend (admittingly no easy task) and SwanseaValley's 0.25 from NPT (for B&R) would result in 4.95 for the west of Glamorgan - perfect! |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 12, 2021 14:51:03 GMT
what leaves Cardiff 3.44 plus VoG 1.36 = 4.80. Taking away ~0.20 from Bridgend (admittingly no easy task) and SwanseaValley's 0.25 from NPT (for B&R) would result in 4.95 for the west of Glamorgan - perfect! Coychurch and Pencoed would look a little odd, but not actually be too silly. But then you'd probably end up with Cardiff South and Penarth needing to take a Barry ward. |
|
