|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Nov 10, 2023 21:21:29 GMT
Mersey Tunnel 71355
Horrendous. I'd not allow it into existence. If it's going to happen, "Seacombe and Central Liverpool" is all I've got. Ooooooh , no. Maybe "Kingsway", that's what that tunnel is called, isn't it?
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Nov 11, 2023 1:11:53 GMT
The exercise has nothing to do with not crossing local authority areas, it's to stick with the c. '85 counties and not close those boundaries (thus the thread originator mentioning that if he does that rigidly you're going to end up with a cross Mersey seat). The problem with The Wirral is that the met boundary as drawn is completely bonkers for a geographically confined and unique area. Well yes, my point is that if one accepts "not crossing 1985 county boundaries" as a starting point, it would make more sense to solve the Wirral problem by treating it as an island separate to the rest of Merseyside than by including it with Cheshire (which would mean the sole violation of 1985 county boundaries, arbitrary as they may be). If one were to use that method, it would result in the "Lancastrian Merseyside" and "Cheshire" maps posted by OP, along with something like this for the Wirral. With this map, there is also the possibility of splitting the West Kirby bit of Hoylake and Meols ward from the rest of the ward and moving it into the Wirral South and West constituency, which would be preferable for community ties but means an extra split ward. I personally think that, given the constraints of this thread, a three-seat Wirral like this would be preferable to the alternatives suggested by OP.  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 11, 2023 10:50:26 GMT
An interesting byproduct of this plan is that London receives 76 seats, its proper entitlement (to the nearest whole number); whereas in the actual 2023 review, a mathematical quirk in the way seats were apportioned meant that it received only 75.
So - where to put that 76th seat?
The final BCE plan, in common with most schemes submitted here (including mine) allowed 29 seats south of the Thames, 5 for TH and Newham taken together, and 9 for the rest of London east of the Lee. Schemes vary, of course, about the exact configuration of seats but that basic apportionment makes a lot of sense so let's stick to it.
That leaves London north of the Thames and west of the Lee (excluding TH). This area's entitlement, to the nearest whole number, is 33; but with a 75-seat London it is left with only 32. This can be done but the seats have to be kept on the large side.
So what would it look like if a 33rd seat were available?
Here's my first stab, without ward splits. I found it harder than I expected and although there are no absolute horror-shows (in my opinion, although others may differ), in some areas there are some fairly untidy arrangements that I couldn't get rid of.
Anyway, here it is for anyone that wants to comment or suggest alternatives.  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 11, 2023 11:42:44 GMT
The exercise has nothing to do with not crossing local authority areas, it's to stick with the c. '85 counties and not close those boundaries (thus the thread originator mentioning that if he does that rigidly you're going to end up with a cross Mersey seat). The problem with The Wirral is that the met boundary as drawn is completely bonkers for a geographically confined and unique area. Well yes, my point is that if one accepts "not crossing 1985 county boundaries" as a starting point, it would make more sense to solve the Wirral problem by treating it as an island separate to the rest of Merseyside than by including it with Cheshire (which would mean the sole violation of 1985 county boundaries, arbitrary as they may be). If one were to use that method, it would result in the "Lancastrian Merseyside" and "Cheshire" maps posted by OP, along with something like this for the Wirral. With this map, there is also the possibility of splitting the West Kirby bit of Hoylake and Meols ward from the rest of the ward and moving it into the Wirral South and West constituency, which would be preferable for community ties but means an extra split ward. I personally think that, given the constraints of this thread, a three-seat Wirral like this would be preferable to the alternatives suggested by OP. What's your electorate range? |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Nov 11, 2023 11:57:47 GMT
What's your electorate range? 77482-85638 would be the allowed electorate range for Wirral's three seats in this scenario. On the high end but still less bad than Northumberland's electorate range seen in the OP. Thanks to the large size of the wards in the Wirral, one split ward is inevitable, but then again that is also the case in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 11, 2023 12:26:24 GMT
Mersey Tunnel 71355 Horrendous. I'd not allow it into existence. If it's going to happen, "Seacombe and Central Liverpool" is all I've got. Ooooooh , no. Maybe "Kingsway", that's what that tunnel is called, isn't it? I'm a big believer that if a seat is bad, the name should indicate it. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Nov 11, 2023 13:47:07 GMT
Rutland should blatantly go with Lincolnshire. Ought to improve both maps.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 11, 2023 16:21:18 GMT
Mersey Tunnel 71355 Horrendous. I'd not allow it into existence. If it's going to happen, "Seacombe and Central Liverpool" is all I've got. Ooooooh , no. Maybe "Kingsway", that's what that tunnel is called, isn't it? I'm a big believer that if a seat is bad, the name should indicate it. Mid Merseyside? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 11, 2023 16:47:34 GMT
I'm a big believer that if a seat is bad, the name should indicate it. Mid Merseyside? Surely just Mid Mersey? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Nov 11, 2023 17:01:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Nov 11, 2023 17:25:14 GMT
]  |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Nov 13, 2023 9:20:19 GMT
An interesting byproduct of this plan is that London receives 76 seats, its proper entitlement (to the nearest whole number); whereas in the actual 2023 review, a mathematical quirk in the way seats were apportioned meant that it received only 75. So - where to put that 76th seat? The final BCE plan, in common with most schemes submitted here (including mine) allowed 29 seats south of the Thames, 5 for TH and Newham taken together, and 9 for the rest of London east of the Lee. Schemes vary, of course, about the exact configuration of seats but that basic apportionment makes a lot of sense so let's stick to it. That leaves London north of the Thames and west of the Lee (excluding TH). This area's entitlement, to the nearest whole number, is 33; but with a 75-seat London it is left with only 32. This can be done but the seats have to be kept on the large side. So what would it look like if a 33rd seat were available? Here's my first stab, without ward splits. I found it harder than I expected and although there are no absolute horror-shows (in my opinion, although others may differ), in some areas there are some fairly untidy arrangements that I couldn't get rid of. Anyway, here it is for anyone that wants to comment or suggest alternatives. Oh go on then - just for fun, here's another attempt. Aimed for minimum change while not splitting communities if poss. In effect Brent N gets two daughter constituencies to make the extra seat. With this scheme you can avoid the double crossing of the H&F - K&C boundary by simply swapping the 4 wards either side (but it's not minimum change and I actually preferred the seats as I have them). Other than that I think this is the same number of borough crossings as yours. I have more orphan wards - I really can't get too fussed about that (and IMHO several of them are better where I have then then with their own borough).  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 13, 2023 10:50:56 GMT
An interesting byproduct of this plan is that London receives 76 seats, its proper entitlement (to the nearest whole number); whereas in the actual 2023 review, a mathematical quirk in the way seats were apportioned meant that it received only 75. So - where to put that 76th seat? The final BCE plan, in common with most schemes submitted here (including mine) allowed 29 seats south of the Thames, 5 for TH and Newham taken together, and 9 for the rest of London east of the Lee. Schemes vary, of course, about the exact configuration of seats but that basic apportionment makes a lot of sense so let's stick to it. That leaves London north of the Thames and west of the Lee (excluding TH). This area's entitlement, to the nearest whole number, is 33; but with a 75-seat London it is left with only 32. This can be done but the seats have to be kept on the large side. So what would it look like if a 33rd seat were available? Here's my first stab, without ward splits. I found it harder than I expected and although there are no absolute horror-shows (in my opinion, although others may differ), in some areas there are some fairly untidy arrangements that I couldn't get rid of. Anyway, here it is for anyone that wants to comment or suggest alternatives. Oh go on then - just for fun, here's another attempt. Aimed for minimum change while not splitting communities if poss. In effect Brent N gets two daughter constituencies to make the extra seat. With this scheme you can avoid the double crossing of the H&F - K&C boundary by simply swapping the 4 wards either side (but it's not minimum change and I actually preferred the seats as I have them). Other than that I think this is the same number of borough crossings as yours. I have more orphan wards - I really can't get too fussed about that (and IMHO several of them are better where I have then then with their own borough). Thanks. I was hoping someone would be unable to resist.
I agree that the extra seat should be in the north Brent area.
Here are my electorates, for the map I posted yesterday except that on reflection it's clearly better to swap Pitshanger and Northfield wards in Ealing. The Kensington / Chelsea area remains very untidy but I can't find a solution that doesn't involve wholesale changes and worse boundaries elsewhere.
Barnet - 76957
Brentford and Heston - 75562
Chelsea and Fulham - 69887
City of London and Westminster South - 71517
Ealing and Acton - 73849
Edmonton - 74244
Enfield - 70431 Finchley - 69989
Greenford - 70309 Hackney North - 73337 Hackney South - 74212
Hammersmith - 70798 Hampstead - 74610
Harrow East and Edgware - 72865 Harrow West - 75676
Hayes and Feltham - 72535 Hendon - 71315
Hornsey and Wood Green - 71975
Hounslow - 74765 Islington North - 73970 Islington South and Shoreditch - 70510
Kensington - 70068 Ruislip - 74990 St Pancras and Finsbury - 72600
Southall - 74554 Southgate - 76032
Tottenham - 71193
Twickenham - 76331 Uxbridge - 70282 Wembley North - 70231 Wembley South - 72051 Westminster North - 69916
Willesden - 69998
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2023 12:56:39 GMT
I've also excluded London, because if you treat Greater London as a county equivalent then it's not an interesting exercise, and if you instead treat the boroughs as county-equivalents then you a) aren't following the practice of the Fifth Review and b) it's an awful mess for similar reasons to Wales. This is a very good argument for abolishing Greater London and restoring its areas to Middlesex, Surrey, Essex, and Kent as appropriate |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Nov 13, 2023 13:59:35 GMT
Thanks. I was hoping someone would be unable to resist.
I agree that the extra seat should be in the north Brent area.
Here are my electorates, for the map I posted yesterday except that on reflection it's clearly better to swap Pitshanger and Northfield wards in Ealing. The Kensington / Chelsea area remains very untidy but I can't find a solution that doesn't involve wholesale changes and worse boundaries elsewhere. Barnet - 76957
Brentford and Heston - 75562
Chelsea and Fulham - 69887
City of London and Westminster South - 71517
Ealing and Acton - 73849
Edmonton - 74244
Enfield - 70431 Finchley - 69989
Greenford - 70309 Hackney North - 73337 Hackney South - 74212
Hammersmith - 70798 Hampstead - 74610
Harrow East and Edgware - 72865 Harrow West - 75676
Hayes and Feltham - 72535 Hendon - 71315
Hornsey and Wood Green - 71975
Hounslow - 74765 Islington North - 73970 Islington South and Shoreditch - 70510
Kensington - 70068 Ruislip - 74990 St Pancras and Finsbury - 72600
Southall - 74554 Southgate - 76032
Tottenham - 71193
Twickenham - 76331 Uxbridge - 70282 Wembley North - 70231 Wembley South - 72051 Westminster North - 69916
Willesden - 69998
Well FWIW here's the list for mine: Brentford & Isleworth 70338 Chipping Barnet 75193 Cities of London & Westminster 70525 Ealing & Acton 74683 Edmonton 74244 Enfield 70431 Feltham & Heston 71916 Finchley 71134 Fulham & Chelsea 70491 Greenford & Northolt 71853 Hackney N & Stoke Newington 76191 Hackney S & Shoreditch 75186 Hammersmith & Chiswick 70190 Hampstead & Highgate 75235 Harrow 74060 Hayes & Heathrow 73984 Hendon 75296 Highbury & Holloway 72330 Holborn & Camden 74462 Hornsey & Finsbury Park 71265 Islington 71096 Kensington 69896 Kenton 71866 Paddington 70765 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner 72168 Southall & Hanwell 74554 Southgate & Wood Green 74635 Stanmore & Edgware 70592 Tottenham 71193 Twickenham 76331 Uxbridge & S Ruislip 75042 Wembley 70216 Willesden 70198 |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Nov 14, 2023 16:30:54 GMT
NorthamptonshireI'm considerably less happy with Northamptonshire, because the old county council boundaries really make it difficult to draw sensible seats. 7.22 quotas equates to 7 seats with a range of 71915-79485. You could draw a perfectly sensible least-change map using the old district wards with very few changes outside Northampton, or there are many options if you're willing to split a ward or two. If you're not, then this is the best I could manage. I think there are perhaps three and a half good seats here?  Kettering 72777 (unchanged) Corby 76706 South East Northants 78695 Wellingborough 76697 Northampton North 72175 Northampton South 75050 Daventry 77799 Had a go at Northants - turns out if you're willing to disrupt Kettering (which is the only seat that could actually remain unchanged !) you can get the rest of the seats half-decent and avoid a double-cross of the LA boundary:  EDIT: Oh actually ...  S Northants 72119 Yes mid-Northants 74809 Northampton N 78115 Northampton S 79433 Wellingborough 75940 Corby 76706 Kettering 72777 |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 15, 2023 9:26:13 GMT
NorthamptonshireI'm considerably less happy with Northamptonshire, because the old county council boundaries really make it difficult to draw sensible seats. 7.22 quotas equates to 7 seats with a range of 71915-79485. You could draw a perfectly sensible least-change map using the old district wards with very few changes outside Northampton, or there are many options if you're willing to split a ward or two. If you're not, then this is the best I could manage. I think there are perhaps three and a half good seats here? Kettering 72777 (unchanged) Corby 76706 South East Northants 78695 Wellingborough 76697 Northampton North 72175 Northampton South 75050 Daventry 77799 Had a go at Northants - turns out if you're willing to disrupt Kettering (which is the only seat that could actually remain unchanged !) you can get the rest of the seats half-decent and avoid a double-cross of the LA boundary: EDIT: Oh actually ... S Northants 72119 Yes mid-Northants 74809 Northampton N 78115 Northampton S 79433 Wellingborough 75940 Corby 76706 Kettering 72777 The issue with that is that Finedon ward includes about half of Wellingborough town centre. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 15, 2023 10:59:00 GMT
Had a go at Northants - turns out if you're willing to disrupt Kettering (which is the only seat that could actually remain unchanged !) you can get the rest of the seats half-decent and avoid a double-cross of the LA boundary: EDIT: Oh actually ... S Northants 72119 Yes mid-Northants 74809 Northampton N 78115 Northampton S 79433 Wellingborough 75940 Corby 76706 Kettering 72777 The issue with that is that Finedon ward includes about half of Wellingborough town centre. Please, East Anglian Lefty and mattb , and I'm asking you politely, stop distracting me when I'm trying to compile a book. 
All in the 71915-79485 range.
Corby - 75832
Daventry (or Mid Nhants) - 75075 Kettering - 73460
Northampton N - 78646 Northampton S - 78882 S Nhants - 72139 Wellingborough - 75867
You can swap Bugbrooke and Hackleton if you think it looks tidier.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 15, 2023 21:26:47 GMT
I'm going to skip Yorkshire & Humber for now and do the East Midlands instead. South Yorkshire isn't that bad. I actually got an arrangement that I wasn't too unhappy with in Sheffield without splitting wards, though it's quite radical and does orphan Penistone West. (Hillsborough: Pen W, S & UD, Stannington, Hillsborough, Walkley. Central: City, B & SV, NE & S, C & C. "Hallam": Fulwood, Ecclesall, D & T, B & G, Graves Park. SE: Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Richmond, Woodhouse. Brightside: S & B, Firth Park, Southey, the Ecclesfields. Heeley & Attercliffe: the rest.) TAFKAH is manageable though I needed to split two wards, one on each side, and accept that the Isle of Axholme was going to be in the same seat as Howden. (You can do it without splitting wards, but I doubt that you can in a way which doesn't deserve to be destroyed with prejudice.) North Yorkshire just requires a few wards moving around, though I had one of them as a rural Selby ward going into York Outer. Bradford is easy: the existing five seats are all in range under these rules. Leeds can have eight seats to itself. Much of the city works with four ward seats, but parts don't and with 33 wards one is going to be split anyway. I split Temple Newsam along the same lines as the BCE, with the bit they put into Leeds East going into what I suppose would still be called Elmet, though I think that's a silly name. Rothwell went with Morley. That isn't the whole region, though... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 15, 2023 21:42:44 GMT
I'm going to skip Yorkshire & Humber for now and do the East Midlands instead. South Yorkshire isn't that bad. I actually got an arrangement that I wasn't too unhappy with in Sheffield without splitting wards, though it's quite radical and does orphan Penistone West. (Hillsborough: Pen W, S & UD, Stannington, Hillsborough, Walkley. Central: City, B & SV, NE & S, C & C. "Hallam": Fulwood, Ecclesall, D & T, B & G, Graves Park. SE: Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Richmond, Woodhouse. Brightside: S & B, Firth Park, Southey, the Ecclesfields. Heeley & Attercliffe: the rest.) TAFKAH is manageable though I needed to split two wards, one on each side, and accept that the Isle of Axholme was going to be in the same seat as Howden. (You can do it without splitting wards, but I doubt that you can in a way which doesn't deserve to be destroyed with prejudice.) North Yorkshire just requires a few wards moving around, though I had one of them as a rural Selby ward going into York Outer. Bradford is easy: the existing five seats are all in range under these rules. Leeds can have eight seats to itself. Much of the city works with four ward seats, but parts don't and with 33 wards one is going to be split anyway. I split Temple Newsam along the same lines as the BCE, with the bit they put into Leeds East going into what I suppose would still be called Elmet, though I think that's a silly name. Rothwell went with Morley. That isn't the whole region, though... I've done Yorkshire, it's just that it does require ward splits and I was mostly leaving those until last. For South Yorkshire, I found the less disruptive option was to put both Penistone wards in with Sheffield, but you're not going to like what I believe is the only legal set of Sheffield wards to add to it to get a set within quota... Kirklees is an absolute nightmare, but there is a way to do it, Calderdale and Wakefield with only ward split and with most towns kept intact. I only expect to receive a few dozen death threats when I post it. |
|
