|
|
Post by islington on Feb 16, 2021 19:06:13 GMT
TBH I'm not convinced that putting Pontardawe in a seat with Radnorshire is preferable to splitting Montgomeryshire. And it's perfectly possible to give West Glamorgan (i.e. NPT and Swansea) four seats together; it's even possible to do so without that boundary along the river by Neath town. Well, YL, the plan you posted on 24 Jan used the River Neath boundary, did it not? And I'm coming to the conclusion it's the least bad plan. When I try to avoid it by putting the Neath town wards in with the other side of the river (plus Swansea Valley, offcuts of Swansea itself) then I end up with a more-or-less reasonable Neath seat but I have to transfer the Dulais and upper Neath Valleys into an Aberavon seat with which they appear to have no direct link at all, not even a farm track. So I think in the end I'm probably sticking to the Neath and Swansea Valley seats I posted yesterday morning. I know 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ won't agree with this plan, but would it help if I changed the respective names to Neath East and, er, Neath West?
(Seriously though - (a) If you don't use the river as a boundary in the Neath town area, what do you do with the Dulais and upr Neath Valleys? (b) What would be a better name for the seat I've called Swansea Valley?)
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 16, 2021 19:57:58 GMT
OK having been convinced my previous attempt (way up the thread) to put Abergavenny with Brecon & Radnor was not ideal, I couldn't resist having another go ...   Perhaps in the end I should just leave Wales alone (!) |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Feb 17, 2021 2:55:55 GMT
There are some good suggestions here....but you can not place Swansea Valley in seat with Radnorshire. It doesnt make sense.
But if you leave the West Glamorgan-Powys boundary in place - and extend a South Powys seat northwards into Montgomeryshire - and balance the remaining seats accordingly it will work.
But your basic premise of trying to keep Denbighshire whole is causing the problem to the south. A Berwyn seat causes far fewer problems
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Feb 17, 2021 3:01:41 GMT
OK having been convinced my previous attempt (way up the thread) to put Abergavenny with Brecon & Radnor was not ideal, I couldn't resist having another go ... Perhaps in the end I should just leave Wales alone (!) if your objective was to mix the most English speaking areas with the most Welsh speaking areas then Congratulations/Llongyfarchiadau. English Maelor with Cader Idris !! Nant Conwy with Rhyl?.. Urgh/Ych a fi... |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,908
|
Post by YL on Feb 17, 2021 8:50:20 GMT
TBH I'm not convinced that putting Pontardawe in a seat with Radnorshire is preferable to splitting Montgomeryshire. And it's perfectly possible to give West Glamorgan (i.e. NPT and Swansea) four seats together; it's even possible to do so without that boundary along the river by Neath town. Well, YL, the plan you posted on 24 Jan used the River Neath boundary, did it not? Yes, and as I said at the time I think it's the obvious solution. But it can be avoided. For example you could put the wards covering the communities of Dyffryn Clydach and Blaenhonddan into the Neath & Port Talbot seat, and move the two Briton Ferry wards and Baglan the other way. Or, if separating Baglan from Aberavon is unacceptable, you could go the whole hog and have a Swansea East & Port Talbot seat, with the Pontardawe area staying in Neath and even being joined by Clydach and Mawr [1]:  28. Neath (72,938). Includes Clydach and the Afan valley; there is at least a road connection. 29. Swansea East & Port Talbot (70,754). 30. Swansea Central (70,169). 31. (Swansea West &) Gower (73,215). Loses Clydach and Mawr, gains more of west Swansea proper. [1] What a strange ward name. What shall we call this ward? Well, it covers quite a large land area, doesn't it, so how about we just call it "Large". (Actually it was the community which had the name first, but that seems to be pretty much how it was actually named.) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 17, 2021 10:50:59 GMT
Well, YL, the plan you posted on 24 Jan used the River Neath boundary, did it not? Yes, and as I said at the time I think it's the obvious solution. But it can be avoided. For example you could put the wards covering the communities of Dyffryn Clydach and Blaenhonddan into the Neath & Port Talbot seat, and move the two Briton Ferry wards and Baglan the other way. Or, if separating Baglan from Aberavon is unacceptable, you could go the whole hog and have a Swansea East & Port Talbot seat, with the Pontardawe area staying in Neath and even being joined by Clydach and Mawr [1]: 28. Neath (72,938). Includes Clydach and the Afan valley; there is at least a road connection. 29. Swansea East & Port Talbot (70,754). 30. Swansea Central (70,169). 31. (Swansea West &) Gower (73,215). Loses Clydach and Mawr, gains more of west Swansea proper. [1] What a strange ward name. What shall we call this ward? Well, it covers quite a large land area, doesn't it, so how about we just call it "Large". (Actually it was the community which had the name first, but that seems to be pretty much how it was actually named.) Very interesting, but I agree with you that the solution in your original plan is the best and most obvious. The area as a whole is on the small side for 4 seats and it leaves the rest of Glamorgan rather heavy on numbers for 9 seats. I know the latter can be done (as shown in your plan (and others') upthread) but it's clearly a strain. So I'm trying to balance out the numbers by treating the Maesteg area (about 15000 electors) with NPT and Swansea. The version I posted on Monday included a less-than-universally-acclaimed 'Swansea Valley' seat; I've been trying to get rid of this, and also restore two seats based on Swansea itself, and I'm now looking at the following (still using the River Neath as a boundary, though):
 Neath - 75185. Or 'Neath and Aberavon'. It's actually the current Aberavon seat plus Maesteg and Neath town and less the Coedffranc area west of the river.
Swansea East - 74486. The current seat plus Townhill and Castle. Swansea West - 76699. Or 'Swansea West and Gower'. Basically if you want to have two Swansea-based seats, you can't also have a separate Gower seat. West Glamorgan - 75920. For want of a better name. What was left over after drawing the other seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 17, 2021 15:09:22 GMT
Ebbw Vale => Blaenau Gwent (Ebbw Vale is only a small part of this area) Bedwellty? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 17, 2021 18:05:15 GMT
If the obsolete county of West Glamorgan really still matters, then the minimum change option is best, keeping obvious successors to Gower and Neath, moving all but one ward west of the Tawe into Swansea West, and connecting Port Talbot to the remainder of Swansea East along Fabian Way. (And if people really want to make a fuss about that being technically discontigous, splitting the Briton Ferry wards to move the M4 andd A48 bridges into Swansea East should affect no electors.)  1 Gower (adds Mayals, Killay N&S, Dunvant) 72149 Yes 2 Neath (adds Briton Ferry E&W and the Afan Valley) 69860 Yes 3 Swansea West (losses to Gower, adds Cwmbwrla, Penderry, Landore, Mynyddbach) 72980 Yes 4 Swansea East and Aberavon (leftover bits) 72087 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 17, 2021 18:28:47 GMT
[1] What a strange ward name. What shall we call this ward? Well, it covers quite a large land area, doesn't it, so how about we just call it "Large". (Actually it was the community which had the name first, but that seems to be pretty much how it was actually named.) Even before 1974, the parish was called Mawr. I presume the name must have originated as a division of the Lordship of Gower. But it's not alone in that level of imagination: both Brycheiniog and Ystrad Tywi had a Cantref Mawr (Great Hundred), although only Ystrad Tywi had the corresponding Cantref Bychan (Little Hundred; Brycheiniog's one was Cantref Selyf, Solomon's Hundred). |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 21, 2021 13:37:48 GMT
if your objective was to mix the most English speaking areas with the most Welsh speaking areas then Congratulations/Llongyfarchiadau. English Maelor with Cader Idris !! Nant Conwy with Rhyl?.. Urgh/Ych a fi... Is this better?   |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Feb 21, 2021 16:03:52 GMT
That looks a lot more realistic...but North Montgomeryshire is never going to be easy
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 21, 2021 16:22:21 GMT
Splitting Montgomeryshire and crossing the Berwyn Mountains when there is no need for either is utter pitchfork bait. Drawing Gaeltachtaí quite rightly is not a consideration (besides being a rubbish policy, we do not want to do for the Welsh language what the Republic of Ireland has done for Irish).
|
|
ian48
Non-Aligned
Posts: 58
|
Post by ian48 on Feb 22, 2021 21:27:04 GMT
I would agree with Neath West on his Gaeltachtai point. That Gwynedd seat just looks made to produce a Welsh-speaking seat at the expense of sense. It shouldn't be hard to produce workable seats that centre on sensible town and hinterland units. Basically, in North Wales, you can and should have seats that combine Caernarfon and Bangor; Conwy, Llandudno and Colwyn Bay; Rhyl and Prestatyn; and Wrexham and it industrial suburbs. The rural areas are so sparsely populated that I think sensible formats for the towns are arguably more important. Otherwise you end up with ridiculous things like Bangor being split from Caernarfon (they and the towns between them belong in the same seat) and Rhos on Sea (which is part of the urban area of Colwyyn Bay), having to be hived off to go with Llandudno to make up for a special Fro Gymraeg seat further west, which then also causes that Maelor/Machynlleth seat to be created. Places like Rhuddlan should be with Rhyl and the Maelor can fit easily with Wrexham where it belongs.
Yes, Bangor used to be paired with Llandudno and Conwy in the old Conwy seat, but that was because of the old boundaries of the 74-96 Gwynedd county. Now that boundaries like that aren't a factor, it should do what's sensible and the former stay with Caernarfon and the latter join in a seat with Colwyn Bay (which was actually first proposed in the 1930s by local councillors).
The Welsh language shouldn't enter into any decisions of the Boundary Commission for Wales (and I say that as a proud Welshman and Welsh-speaker).
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 23, 2021 4:50:27 GMT
I would agree with Neath West on his Gaeltachtai point. That Gwynedd seat just looks made to produce a Welsh-speaking seat at the expense of sense. It shouldn't be hard to produce workable seats that centre on sensible town and hinterland units. Basically, in North Wales, you can and should have seats that combine Caernarfon and Bangor; Conwy, Llandudno and Colwyn Bay; Rhyl and Prestatyn; and Wrexham and it industrial suburbs. The rural areas are so sparsely populated that I think sensible formats for the towns are arguably more important. Otherwise you end up with ridiculous things like Bangor being split from Caernarfon (they and the towns between them belong in the same seat) and Rhos on Sea (which is part of the urban area of Colwyyn Bay), having to be hived off to go with Llandudno to make up for a special Fro Gymraeg seat further west, which then also causes that Maelor/Machynlleth seat to be created. Places like Rhuddlan should be with Rhyl and the Maelor can fit easily with Wrexham where it belongs. Yes, Bangor used to be paired with Llandudno and Conwy in the old Conwy seat, but that was because of the old boundaries of the 74-96 Gwynedd county. Now that boundaries like that aren't a factor, it should do what's sensible and the former stay with Caernarfon and the latter join in a seat with Colwyn Bay (which was actually first proposed in the 1930s by local councillors). The Welsh language shouldn't enter into any decisions of the Boundary Commission for Wales (and I say that as a proud Welshman and Welsh-speaker). It's not that absurd. Y Felinheli forms a very important buffer zone between Wtopia and Cofi.  |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 13, 2021 11:33:09 GMT
I have finally got round to looking at Wales, two months after everyone else.
In the west Carmarthenshire is good for 2 seats, and Pembrokeshire + Ceredigion for 3.
In the north, Wrexham, Flintshire, Denbighshire, Conwy, Gwynnedd & Powys are good for 8 seats. You have a problem what to do with Montgomery. You can either link it to the north with the old Clwyd South, or sprawl it across mid-Wales to join with the southern end of Gwynedd and Conwy. I have gone for the latter, which means Denbighshire can stand on its own, and Wrexham + Flintshire is good for 3 seats on its own. Gwynedd stretches all the way down the coast from Bangor to include the Llyn peninsula.
Swansea and Neath Port Talbot work for 4 seats although boundaries aren't ideal.
South Wales is trickier. I have linked Rhondda with Ogmore, Cynon Valley with Pontypridd, left Merthyr paired with Rhymney, and extended Blaenau Gwent southwards to include Blackwood. This is the besti I can do to preserve the geography of the valleys. The southern end of Rhondda Cynon Taff (Llantrisant) then links nicely with the western end of the Vale of Glamorgan, with the rest of the Vale making a seat on its own.
This means linking Cardiff with Newport. West just needs to add Llandaff North. A new South-Central seat links Butetown etc with the city centre. North adds Cyncoed in exchange for Llandaff North (and takes Taffs Wells as per zombie review, as there's just too many voters in RCT). Then there's a clunky seat linking the 4 eastern wards of Cardiff with the western end of Newport - a bit messy deciding which bits of Newport town to cut off.
Torfaen and Monmouthshire stand alone.
I was surprised how easy this was, after the difficulties I had with making sensible seats for the zombie reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 13, 2021 12:50:24 GMT
I have finally got round to looking at Wales, two months after everyone else. In the west Carmarthenshire is good for 2 seats, and Pembrokeshire + Ceredigion for 3. In the north, Wrexham, Flintshire, Denbighshire, Conwy, Gwynnedd & Powys are good for 8 seats. You have a problem what to do with Montgomery. You can either link it to the north with the old Clwyd South, or sprawl it across mid-Wales to join with the southern end of Gwynedd and Conwy. I have gone for the latter, which means Denbighshire can stand on its own, and Wrexham + Flintshire is good for 3 seats on its own. Gwynedd stretches all the way down the coast from Bangor to include the Llyn peninsula. Swansea and Neath Port Talbot work for 4 seats although boundaries aren't ideal. South Wales is trickier. I have linked Rhondda with Ogmore, Cynon Valley with Pontypridd, left Merthyr paired with Rhymney, and extended Blaenau Gwent southwards to include Blackwood. This is the besti I can do to preserve the geography of the valleys. The southern end of Rhondda Cynon Taff (Llantrisant) then links nicely with the western end of the Vale of Glamorgan, with the rest of the Vale making a seat on its own. This means linking Cardiff with Newport. West just needs to add Llandaff North. A new South-Central seat links Butetown etc with the city centre. North adds Cyncoed in exchange for Llandaff North (and takes Taffs Wells as per zombie review, as there's just too many voters in RCT). Then there's a clunky seat linking the 4 eastern wards of Cardiff with the western end of Newport - a bit messy deciding which bits of Newport town to cut off. Torfaen and Monmouthshire stand alone. I was surprised how easy this was, after the difficulties I had with making sensible seats for the zombie reviews. It becomes somewhat easier if you add Maesteg from the Bridgend council area. They are both in Glamorgan, after all. Once Newport East is expanded and loses the town of Caldicot (which does not belong in a Newport-based seat anyway despite its excellent links to that city), it will take in the city centre leaving just the western suburbs. Newport West then links with the easternmost wards of Cardiff to create "St Mellons & Bassaleg". This solution actually works very well indeed for South Wales (despite two awkward-looking seats in Mid Glamorgan) and keeps reasonably well to "minimum change". |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 28, 2021 13:32:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 29, 2021 8:25:54 GMT
Assuming you want to give four seats to a combination of BG/Caerphilly/Newport (295930 = 4.03), here's a way of doing it that gives a lot of respect to current boundaries.
 Caerphilly - 76039. The entire current seat plus the part of the current Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney seat in Caerphilly district (i.e. the Rhymney part). It's long and thin but it follows the terrain. Newport East - 72775. The current seat minus the bits in Monmouthshire district and plus Caerleon, the Malpas/Bettws area and Pillgwenlly. Newport West and Risca - 70989. The current seat loses several wards to Newport E (but still extends to the Usk to include Newport town centre); it adds the southern half of the current Islwyn seat.
Bedwellty - 76127. The whole of Blaenau Gwent plus the northern half of Islwyn. The name I admit is a bit speculative on my part; Ebbw Vale and Abertillery are both included in the seat and have been used as names in the past (actually I really like 'Abertillery', which has a fine Welsh ring to it, but I don't know whether it would be acceptable for the seat as a whole). If preferred, the numbers still work if Crumlin ward is switched to the previous seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on May 9, 2021 16:26:32 GMT
Not sure if this is the right place but does anyone know what will happen to the Senedd seats when the Westminster seats are reduced from 40 to 28? I'm guessing it is in Welsh Labour's interests to break the coterminosity rather than have an increase in the lists seats.
If they do keep at 40, they will still need to have a boundary review for the new assembly seats. 40 seats for Wales works out quite well
Anglesey - 1
Gwynedd + Conwy - 3
Denbigh + Wrexham - 3
Flint - 2
"Dyfed" - 3
Swansea - 3
NPT - 2
Bridgend - 2
RCT - 3
Cardiff and Vale - 6
BG - 1
Caerphilly + Merthyr - 3
Monmouth and Powys - 3
Torfaen and Newport - 3
So the North would lose 1 seat (Clwyd W) and Cardiff and Vale would gain 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 9, 2021 16:38:17 GMT
The Senedd has power to alter its electoral arrangements. At present the constituencies laid down by the 2007 review of UK Parliamentary constituencies are prescribed - Government of Wales Act 2006, s. 2, as amended by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (anaw 1). So a new set of UK Parliamentary constituencies will not automatically feed through into Senedd constituencies. It's quite likely that the Senedd will want to expand its membership as 60 members is too few, so a new electoral system will be adopted which means new bespoke district boundaries. |
|
