|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2024 0:11:58 GMT
I had a play around with the Eastern region. Bedfordshire works perfectly well for 6 seats (5.87) but..
Essex (16.95) and Suffolk (7.01) can easily stand alone. Norfolk (8.49) and Cambridgeshire (7.43) can be paired, but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17.
I'm so glad they went back to 650
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2024 6:58:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 12, 2024 10:09:30 GMT
I had a play around with the Eastern region. Bedfordshire works perfectly well for 6 seats (5.87) but.. Essex (16.95) and Suffolk (7.01) can easily stand alone. Norfolk (8.49) and Cambridgeshire (7.43) can be paired, but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. I'm so glad they went back to 650 I wonder if the easier solution might be to chain together Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. 26.50 quotas for 26 seats gives you enough to play with and the Hertfordshire-Cambridgeshire border is light enough on the ground that you could probably get away with it, though it'd be quite disruptive. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 12, 2024 10:38:40 GMT
Here's my attempt at Hampshire.  Shoving Paulsgrove into Fareham isn't ideal, and creating a Portsmouth North and Waterlooville seat like this would require an extremely precise ward split in Portsmouth (between them, the two Portsmouth seats would only be 11 electors below the maximum, so that's the margin being worked with unless you accept a second ward split) But it does manage to keep most seats reasonably intact and the new creations like Eastleigh and Romsey aren't too bad. I looked at this arrangement in N Hants but it splits Tadley in half, which is why I went for the Basingstoke doughnut instead. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 12, 2024 10:50:57 GMT
I had a play around with the Eastern region. Bedfordshire works perfectly well for 6 seats (5.87) but.. Essex (16.95) and Suffolk (7.01) can easily stand alone. Norfolk (8.49) and Cambridgeshire (7.43) can be paired, but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. I'm so glad they went back to 650 Herts + Beds = 16.45 = 16, not 17. I might have a go at this but not today because I'm not at my computer. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Mar 12, 2024 11:06:38 GMT
but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. Here's my go at a ten-seat Hertfordshire. It feels to me like it actually makes more sense than the existing Hertfordshire map! Bishop's Stortford shoved into Essex, which can easily absorb it. Wasn't sure of the best way to bring St Albans down to the acceptable population range from here- there are several options but all feel not quite right.  |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Mar 12, 2024 11:20:34 GMT
but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. Here's my go at a ten-seat Hertfordshire. It feels to me like it actually makes more sense than the existing Hertfordshire map! Bishop's Stortford shoved into Essex, which can easily absorb it. Wasn't sure of the best way to bring St Albans down to the acceptable population range from here- there are several options but all feel not quite right. So you have failed at a 10 seat Hertfordshire |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 12, 2024 11:26:00 GMT
but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. Here's my go at a ten-seat Hertfordshire. It feels to me like it actually makes more sense than the existing Hertfordshire map! Bishop's Stortford shoved into Essex, which can easily absorb it. Wasn't sure of the best way to bring St Albans down to the acceptable population range from here- there are several options but all feel not quite right. I wish I could have a go at this today but if Herts and Beds are to be paired for 16, the first thing I'd want to try is Beds + N Herts district = 7 and rest of Herts = 9. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 12, 2024 12:55:54 GMT
I had a play around with the Eastern region. Bedfordshire works perfectly well for 6 seats (5.87) but.. Essex (16.95) and Suffolk (7.01) can easily stand alone. Norfolk (8.49) and Cambridgeshire (7.43) can be paired, but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. I'm so glad they went back to 650 I wonder if the easier solution might be to chain together Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. 26.50 quotas for 26 seats gives you enough to play with and the Hertfordshire-Cambridgeshire border is light enough on the ground that you could probably get away with it, though it'd be quite disruptive. Which is of course exactly what the BCE did in the second failed review. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 12, 2024 14:33:08 GMT
 Here's a quick attempt at Essex. Thurrock 80392 - unchanged South Basildon & East Thurrock 82165 Basildon & Wickford 78123 Castle Point 78262 Southend West 76637 Southend North & Rochford 80283 Rayleigh & South Woodham Ferrers 78977 Chelmsford 76454 Brentwood & Mid Essex 77433 Epping Forest 83146 Harlow & Ongar 76002 Saffron Walden 79246 Braintree 77238 Maldon & Witham 81908 Colchester 82475 - unchanged after ward realignment North Essex 78654 Harwich & Clacton 81393 To explain briefly my logic: A Basildon New Town seat works pretty well with 17 seats and East Thurrock pairs OK with Brentwood, but it'd be a tough sell with the BCE and there's no way West Leigh would accept being put in with Castle Point. So you may as well just accept that Thurrock, Basildon and Castle Point creates a reasonable group for four seats and they draw themselves. That then naturally leads to a five seat group of Southend, Rochford, Chelmsford and Brentwood. I would have liked to have left Chelmsford unchanged, but doing that means you end up splitting Hockley. I think that's OK, because Hockley, Hawkwell and Rochford fade into one another, the ward boundaries are unhelpful and the overall area will have to be split between seats, but I don't think the BCE would go for it. That then leads to Epping Forest and Harlow getting two seats, with the only choice being whether the latter goes with Ongar or Waltham Abbey. The former moves fewer electors. Mathematically you could do the remaining LAs as two groups of 3, but practically the Colchester-Tendring group is too large to draw nice seats, so I hived off Tiptree which fits in fine with Maldon and Witham. This plan for Colchester would produce a lot of complaints from Lexden but part of the town has to be hacked off and that's the least change option. Similarly, cutting Little Clacton is a closer haircut than I'd like but there's no nicer option without a ward-split. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 12, 2024 15:28:44 GMT
 Fermanagh & South Tyrone 81514 - gains Coalisland, shifts strongly towards SF West Tyrone 81439 - gains Cookstown, possibly needs a new name Foyle 80506 - gains Claudy Glenshane 78957 - combines most of Mid Ulster with all of East Londonderry west of Coleraine. Likely to be safe SF North Antrim & Coleraine 81623 - swaps Ballymena for Coleraine. Note a huge partisan shift East Antrim & Ballymena 80717 - not great internal links, could potentially swap Ballymena for parts of Newtonabbey to fix this at the cost of an extra LA crossing South Antrim 76667 - now all in one local authority North Belfast 82301 - gains the entirety of the Shankill Road. If the DUP can't win this alignment of the seat, they'll never win it again West Belfast 81175 - absorbs a huge chunk of South Belfast, remains safe SF. Would be tempted to add Upper Malone ward and transfer the Holylands to East Belfast East Belfast 83435 - I think this would benefit the Alliance slightly, but I'm not certain North Down 79992 - boundary with Strangford could be improved by losing Moneyreagh and splitting Loughries ward. Addition of Dundonald benefits the DUP Strangford 82204 - gains Newtonbreda Lagan Valley 79583 - minor changes South Down 80648 - minor changes Upper Bann 82282 - loses Loughbrickland to get down to size Newry & Armagh 82335 - unchanged Overall I think that would shake out as DUP 8, SF 6, SDLP 1, Alliance 1. The DUP would lose one due to the abolition of East Londonderry and would likely lose East Belfast to the Alliance, but would regain North Belfast from SF and North Down from the Alliance. SF would lose North Belfast. The SDLP would lose a seat with the abolition of South Belfast. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2024 19:07:57 GMT
I had a play around with the Eastern region. Bedfordshire works perfectly well for 6 seats (5.87) but.. Essex (16.95) and Suffolk (7.01) can easily stand alone. Norfolk (8.49) and Cambridgeshire (7.43) can be paired, but Hertfordshire has 10.58 quotas. You can divide Hertfordshire into 11 seats (they would avergae 76,496 so in quota, but it would require some ward splitting) but that makes the total 57 when the region as a whole is 56. So you'd have to pair Herts and Beds which works fine for 18 seats (as with the real review) but is horrible for 17. I'm so glad they went back to 650 I might have a go at this but not today because I'm not at my computer. It was late 16 works much better than 17 (not as well as 18 though)  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 13, 2024 9:54:23 GMT
Norfolk and Cambridge work better as a pair than as a trio with Hertfordshire. Here's my best effort:  North Norfolk 83284 - co-extensive with the local authority Great Yarmouth 81957 Mid Norfolk 77496 - linear successor to Broadland, but fairly close to the pre-2010 seat of this name Norwich North 79064 - return to the pre-2010 boundaries Norwich South 80335 - gains one ward from South Norfolk South Norfolk 78056 - loses one ward to Norwich South Thetford 82423 - other names are available, but this spares outsiders from the embarrassment of trying to pronounce Wymondham Kings Lynn 76729 - the name is the most significant change Downham & The Fens 79472 - Downham Market doesn't have brilliant links to Fenland, but this winds up less disruptive than a seat running down the A10 Isle of Ely 77181 South Cambridgeshire 76359 Cambridge 78526 - unchanged Mid Cambridgeshire 77157 - the A14 corridor plus Cambourne Huntingdon 79054 Peterborough South & Whittlesey 77165 Peterborough North 82767 - everything north of the Nene, bar that weird bit of Fletton & Woodston |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 13, 2024 11:34:46 GMT
Norfolk and Cambridge work better as a pair than as a trio with Hertfordshire. Here's my best effort: North Norfolk 83284 - co-extensive with the local authority Great Yarmouth 81957 Mid Norfolk 77496 - linear successor to Broadland, but fairly close to the pre-2010 seat of this name Norwich North 79064 - return to the pre-2010 boundaries Norwich South 80335 - gains one ward from South Norfolk South Norfolk 78056 - loses one ward to Norwich South Thetford 82423 - other names are available, but this spares outsiders from the embarrassment of trying to pronounce Wymondham Kings Lynn 76729 - the name is the most significant change Downham & The Fens 79472 - Downham Market doesn't have brilliant links to Fenland, but this winds up less disruptive than a seat running down the A10 Isle of Ely 77181 South Cambridgeshire 76359 Cambridge 78526 - unchanged Mid Cambridgeshire 77157 - the A14 corridor plus Cambourne Huntingdon 79054 Peterborough South & Whittlesey 77165 Peterborough North 82767 - everything north of the Nene, bar that weird bit of Fletton & Woodston What's the problem with pronouncing Wymondham? It's as easy as Happisburgh. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 16, 2024 20:39:43 GMT
Well it's a starting point.  One split ward in each of Sheffield, Kirklees and Bradford, two in Wakefield and three in Leeds. Just for fun, here's a non-split version. 
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 17, 2024 15:52:26 GMT
W Mids - urban bits. I was pretty happy with the 9-seat non-split Brum. 
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 17, 2024 15:58:30 GMT
And W Mids region as a whole. Mostly not too bad, but Staffs isn't great and Warwks/Coventry is a real mess and needs more work. Not a ward split in sight.  Edited to add: Here's an alternative approach to Warwks/Coventry, and also the Walsall & E Staffs area, that may be marginally preferable. Permit me to observe that with a 600 seat plan Warwickshire is a real brute. 
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Mar 17, 2024 19:19:36 GMT
Fermanagh & South Tyrone 81514 - gains Coalisland, shifts strongly towards SF West Tyrone 81439 - gains Cookstown, possibly needs a new name Foyle 80506 - gains Claudy Glenshane 78957 - combines most of Mid Ulster with all of East Londonderry west of Coleraine. Likely to be safe SF North Antrim & Coleraine 81623 - swaps Ballymena for Coleraine. Note a huge partisan shift East Antrim & Ballymena 80717 - not great internal links, could potentially swap Ballymena for parts of Newtonabbey to fix this at the cost of an extra LA crossing South Antrim 76667 - now all in one local authority North Belfast 82301 - gains the entirety of the Shankill Road. If the DUP can't win this alignment of the seat, they'll never win it again West Belfast 81175 - absorbs a huge chunk of South Belfast, remains safe SF. Would be tempted to add Upper Malone ward and transfer the Holylands to East Belfast East Belfast 83435 - I think this would benefit the Alliance slightly, but I'm not certain North Down 79992 - boundary with Strangford could be improved by losing Moneyreagh and splitting Loughries ward. Addition of Dundonald benefits the DUP Strangford 82204 - gains Newtonbreda Lagan Valley 79583 - minor changes South Down 80648 - minor changes Upper Bann 82282 - loses Loughbrickland to get down to size Newry & Armagh 82335 - unchanged Overall I think that would shake out as DUP 8, SF 6, SDLP 1, Alliance 1. The DUP would lose one due to the abolition of East Londonderry and would likely lose East Belfast to the Alliance, but would regain North Belfast from SF and North Down from the Alliance. SF would lose North Belfast. The SDLP would lose a seat with the abolition of South Belfast. Very close to what I got (don't think there are many better options.) Not sure where your North Down figures come from, though? On Boundary Assistant I added the 5 Dundonald wards and that gives 77702, which is above the lower limit of 76932. There's no need to add Moneyreagh, which can stay in Strangford, making for a much neater boundary (Newtownbreda no longer a salient.) The Belfast seats would be renamed (as they would have been had previous attempts to reduce it to 3 seats gone ahead) to South-West and South-East. Stranmillis and Central in the eastern one is better due to the Ormeau Road links. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,142 
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 17, 2024 21:48:13 GMT
Had a quick stab at this for the South West the other night: ![]()  Bristol you can just about make work, but in practice you'd almost certainly end up with ward splits and/or a seat crossing with BANES or North Somerset and not just South Glos.  North of that, you'd probably want to split wards as well to avoid seeing Cheltenham cleft in twain. Could always add a couple of wards from Stroud district to the Forest of Dean because they're next to each other on the map, but on the ground that's obviously a far worse option. The seat based on Cotswold district ends up fairly neat, mind.  Moving nextdoor, we find that a single ward swap works for Swindon, Chippenham moving into North Wilts and therefore usurping its name, and a cross-county seat required at the bottom end instead of the top. Which was an option in the actual 650-seat review as well, I suppose. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,142
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 17, 2024 22:03:12 GMT
 Dipping into Dorset, the big unitary divisions make the rural seats less than neat so could be tidied up with splits. In the built-up part, I'm not sure the BCE would actually go for Poole & Wareham and Bournemouth East & Christchurch instead of attempting a 'minimum change' option once again, but the reduction in seats would certainly provide them with a better excuse.  Devon might end up very different in reality. The Commission seems to prefer 2 seats in Plymouth proper instead of 3 for 'Greater Plymouth' (and thus SW Devon disappearing) for whatever reason. There's a slight ward swap in Exeter so that it takes as many electors as possible. North Devon can stand alone but it makes things easier to add to it, though Commissioners rejected that case recently so might insist on creating headaches for themselves elsewhere by leaving it intact. Perhaps I should've gone for Ilfracombe & Torrington and put more of Mid Devon into Central Devon to make it neater. What remains of East Devon is an incoherent mess too but Tiverton & Cullompton doesn't deliver as many electors as Tiverton and Minehead which I wanted to avoid, especially as Devonwall returns on these numbers. To wit:  Can't see how you get 6 full seats out of these unitary divisions, but at least the cross-border constituency doesn't need to take in Launceston this time. Not a fan of the St Austell seat stretching all the way to the top coast, but needs must.  Last but not least, my old home. Most of the Taunton surrounds not actually being in the Taunton seat isn't great, but it's the price you pay for making Bridgwater tidier and rejecting the idea of putting Minehead in with either Barnstaple or Tivvy. Cary not being in the same constituency as Somerton or Wincanton would baffle five of my relatives, but the rules are rigid, so it is what it is. Elsewhere you still get a tighter Weston than at present, a 'Mendip Hills' seat and Hanham from South Glos being put in with part of BANES, whose mining villages also end up with Frome like in the actual last Review. |
|
