Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 16, 2020 12:52:06 GMT
I have occasionally looked at putting the two Hagley wards into a Stourbridge seat which is where they look to far more than Bromsgrove, but last time I did it, it didn't really help matters and the resistance would be furious. When drawing seats, I tend to ignore the views of local people completely. Which is fine if you are drawing seats for fun. If however you want your proposals to be adopted you really should try and avoid boundaries that will lead to substantial objections, especially in the kind of areas where people are more inclined to turn up at a public inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 16, 2020 17:03:01 GMT
When drawing seats, I tend to ignore the views of local people completely. Which is fine if you are drawing seats for fun. If however you want your proposals to be adopted you really should try and avoid boundaries that will lead to substantial objections, especially in the kind of areas where people are more inclined to turn up at a public inquiry. Where was that thread we had for Pitchfork Bait?
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on May 16, 2020 17:09:45 GMT
If I've got the quota right (70,055 - 77,429) then Lancashire is a right tight pickle. Some of these are over quota and some could do with major tweaking but here we go. 1. Morecambe and Westmorland 2. Lancaster and Wyre 3. Fleetwood and Poulton 4. Blackpool 5. Fylde 6. Preston 7. Burnley and Nelson 8. Pendle and Ribble Valley 9. Accrington and Padiham 10. Rossendale and Darwen 11. Blackburn 12. Chorley 13. South Ribble 14. West Lancashire 15. Southport I haven't got the numbers to hand for the 2015 electorates, but in 2019 Cumbria+Lancashire+Southport equals roughly 21.4 seats in a 650 seat Commons by my calculations, so there's one missing? It might be very difficult to avoid joining some to Greater Manchester as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on May 16, 2020 17:11:58 GMT
Which is fine if you are drawing seats for fun. If however you want your proposals to be adopted you really should try and avoid boundaries that will lead to substantial objections, especially in the kind of areas where people are more inclined to turn up at a public inquiry. Where was that thread we had for Pitchfork Bait? Found it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 17:20:26 GMT
If I've got the quota right (70,055 - 77,429) then Lancashire is a right tight pickle. Some of these are over quota and some could do with major tweaking but here we go. 1. Morecambe and Westmorland 2. Lancaster and Wyre 3. Fleetwood and Poulton 4. Blackpool 5. Fylde 6. Preston 7. Burnley and Nelson 8. Pendle and Ribble Valley 9. Accrington and Padiham 10. Rossendale and Darwen 11. Blackburn 12. Chorley 13. South Ribble 14. West Lancashire 15. Southport I haven't got the numbers to hand for the 2015 electorates, but in 2019 Cumbria+Lancashire+Southport equals roughly 21.4 seats in a 650 seat Commons by my calculations, so there's one missing? It might be very difficult to avoid joining some to Greater Manchester as well. *intake of breath* When Boundary Assistant gets the newest electorates and wards I'll have a play. Is my quota roughly right anyway do you think?
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by jamie on May 16, 2020 17:23:42 GMT
Rossendale and Darwen is the problem, not the solution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 17:26:04 GMT
Rossendale and Darwen is the problem, not the solution. Darwen moving in with Bolton as it almost did during the first Zombie Review? That would please andrewteale no end.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 16, 2020 17:51:53 GMT
Rossendale and Darwen is the problem, not the solution. Darwen moving in with Bolton as it almost did during the first Zombie Review? That would please andrewteale no end. You're going to have to do something radical in the northern GM boroughs, as the Rochdale seats are too large while Bury North and the Bolton seats are too small and there's not much scope to expand them southwards. That gives you lots of options. When I tried this on the Electoral Calculus 2019 electorates I had one ward of Rochdale moving into Rossendale and Darwen and a seat called "Chorley and Horwich", both of which are far better than a Bolton/Darwen linkup.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on May 16, 2020 19:24:02 GMT
I haven't got the numbers to hand for the 2015 electorates, but in 2019 Cumbria+Lancashire+Southport equals roughly 21.4 seats in a 650 seat Commons by my calculations, so there's one missing? It might be very difficult to avoid joining some to Greater Manchester as well. *intake of breath* When Boundary Assistant gets the newest electorates and wards I'll have a play. Is my quota roughly right anyway do you think? Yes. I've got a few hundred lower for some reason, but that doesn't matter when we don't have the up to date ward electorates anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on May 16, 2020 20:01:30 GMT
Β Darwen moving in with Bolton as it almost did during the first Zombie Review? That would please andrewteale no end. You're going to have to do something radical in the northern GM boroughs, as the Rochdale seats are too large while Bury North and the Bolton seats are too small and there's not much scope to expand them southwards. That gives you lots of options. When I tried this on the Electoral Calculus 2019 electorates I had one ward of Rochdale moving into Rossendale and Darwen and a seat called "Chorley and Horwich", both of which are far better than a Bolton/Darwen linkup. I had a fairly radical plan with a Chorley & Darwen seat and old-style Rossendale with Ramsbottom and Tottington. But it may have been a 7.5% leeway on the quota. Iβll try recreate it tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 16, 2020 20:03:33 GMT
Following on from the discussion on the Windsor about suggestions of that seat absorbing (additional) parts of Slough, my view is that as things stand the Thames Valley as a whole would get two extra seats but if you were to consider each of the three counties separately you would end up probably with three extra seats (while the South East as a whole (excluding IoW) gets 5 extra and each will be needed in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Treating the Thames Valley as a single unit is logical enough especially given the historical movement of areas from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire on the one hand and from Berkshire to Oxfordshire on the other. As such, excess Slough wards can be placed in Beaconsfield (which already contains a good deal of 'Slough Outer') with the remaining excess electorate of Berkshire being removed in the West to create a cross-county Berks/Oxon seat (but with the situation thereby more correctly respecting the traditional county boundaries in the area) Obviously there is a great deal of choice here as to which Slough ward is moved (and it may end up being more than one). I chose Wexham because this was historically a separate parish and was part of the Beaconsfield seat up until 1983, but Haymill might be a more logical addition. Splitting Langley would not be ideal, but if it turns out all three wards could be moved that would be better still
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 16, 2020 20:10:56 GMT
When drawing seats, I tend to ignore the views of local people completely. Which is fine if you are drawing seats for fun. If however you want your proposals to be adopted you really should try and avoid boundaries that will lead to substantial objections, especially in the kind of areas where people are more inclined to turn up at a public inquiry. In fairness, it never seems to bother the Commission either. How many times have you seen a set of provisional proposals, rolled your eyes and muttered "that's never going to pass a local enquiry" ? Sure enough, when it comes to the enquiries, it is laughed out quicker than you can say "Mersey Banks."
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on May 16, 2020 20:13:13 GMT
Not bad, though I'm not sure about that Bicester and Headington seat. It would look awful because of Forest Hill and Holton, but I'd swap the Headington/Marston wards for North Oxford, which has better connections to Kidlington and up the A34 to Bicester.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 16, 2020 20:15:10 GMT
Amusingly enough, the cross-county Wantage seat in this plan was once entirely in Berkshire.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 16, 2020 20:44:03 GMT
Amusingly enough, the cross-county Wantage seat in this plan was once entirely in Berkshire. Which is what I said
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on May 16, 2020 21:11:16 GMT
Here's playing with some alternative ideas, trying to make Oxfordshire look a bit happier: OxfordshireAbingdon 71364 Yes Witney 69286 Yes Banbury 66219 Yes Bicester 65873 Yes Oxford 72209 Yes Bullingdon 67291 Yes [what else does one call a constituency east of Oxford?]Cross-boundary Oxon/BerksHenley 72167 Yes [after all, Caversham belongs in Oxfordshire]Berkshire Newbury 69391 Yes Bradfield 65804 Yes [after Bullingdon, I was on a roll on old RDC names...]Reading 67216 Yes Wokingham 68408 Yes [very ugly, I know]Twyford 67528 Yes Bracknell 67856 Yes Windsor and Maidenhead 68297 Yes Cross-boundary Berks/Bucks Beaconsfield and Eton 72208 Yes [doughnut, much though splitting Slough in half was tempting]Buckinghamshire Slough 68225 Yes Chesham and Amersham 68560 Yes Wycombe 68274 Yes Princes Risborough 71396 Yes Aylesbury 68947 Yes Buckingham 68572 Yes Milton Keynes 68996 Yes Newport Pagnell 71457 Yes
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 16, 2020 21:20:10 GMT
Have you really split Windsor between three constituencies?
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on May 16, 2020 21:29:45 GMT
Have you really split Windsor between three constituencies? The gain of bringing the boundaries closer to Windsor town is that Wycombe district ends up split between only two constituencies.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on May 16, 2020 21:32:19 GMT
Here's playing with some alternative ideas, trying to make Oxfordshire look a bit happier: OxfordshireAbingdon 71364 Yes Witney 69286 Yes Banbury 66219 Yes Bicester 65873 Yes Oxford 72209 Yes Bullingdon 67291 Yes [what else does one call a constituency east of Oxford?]Cross-boundary Oxon/BerksHenley 72167 Yes [after all, Caversham belongs in Oxfordshire]Berkshire Newbury 69391 Yes Bradfield 65804 Yes [after Bullingdon, I was on a roll on old RDC names...]Reading 67216 Yes Wokingham 68408 Yes [very ugly, I know]Twyford 67528 Yes Bracknell 67856 Yes Windsor and Maidenhead 68297 Yes Cross-boundary Berks/Bucks Beaconsfield and Eton 72208 Yes [doughnut, much though splitting Slough in half was tempting]Buckinghamshire Slough 68225 Yes Chesham and Amersham 68560 Yes Wycombe 68274 Yes Princes Risborough 71396 Yes Aylesbury 68947 Yes Buckingham 68572 Yes Milton Keynes 68996 Yes Newport Pagnell 71457 Yes That Bullingdon seat is about the most promising "rural Oxfordshire" seat possible for Labour! Not only have you got the most Labour wards in Oxford in there, but also Berinsfield (where Labour are at least competitive), and Didcot (which is fairly evenly split).
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 16, 2020 21:33:47 GMT
Have you really split Windsor between three constituencies? The gain of bringing the boundaries closer to Windsor town is that Wycombe district ends up split between only two constituencies. Oh well - that's the main thing!
|
|