J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,672
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 3, 2015 11:42:41 GMT
I had 993846, which is probably just a typing error on my part. EDIT: But comparing that to the electorates of the Sheffield seats still suggests Penistone's electorate is about 45000 (and has grown by 20000 in 5 years), which isn't feasible. I'm starting to wonder if the LGBCE figures by borough have accidentally assigned the Penistone portion of Penistone & Stocksbridge to Sheffield and the Stocksbridge portion to Barnsley. Looks like you're right as even the local election total is about 403,000. The city council's election results page gives the definitive answer in stating the P&S electorate as "71,048 (includes 27,245 in Barnsley)". This gives a Sheffield Parliamentary electorate of 406,095 which would give 5.25 seats in a 600-seat HoC. 0.25 seats is about 18,600 which, annoyingly, is not a whole number of Sheffield 15,000-elector wards. With a 650-seat HoC Sheffield would get 5.66 seats, and 0.66 of a seat is about 45,000 which is 3 Sheffield wards, so would be easy to keep the three northern wards in a seat with Barnsley. Edit: I've also emailed the BC pointing out the error.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 3, 2015 12:45:04 GMT
It's still close enough to remove one ward and still easily be within the tolerance. The problem is you'd then have to have two constituencies with 6 wards, which is difficult enough on the current boundaries but would be near impossible with the better electoral equality of the coming wards. - - - - Moving on to the West Midlands, it'll be entitled to 53 seats out of 600. Going by preserved counties, entitlements are as follows: Herefordshire & Worcs | 7.41 | Shropshire | 4.56 | Staffs | 10.77 | Warwickshire | 5.49 | West Midlands | 24.8 |
Herefordshire on its own is 1.797, so it can't stand alone unless it gains a few hundred electors on its neighbours prior to the freeze date (and probably even then, unless you're very lucky with ward electorates.) Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire combined have a quota of almost exactly 12 seats, which is neat enough, but that doesn't mean the cross-border seats would be. Either you'd need one Herefordshire seat and two combining rural parts with rural parts of Shropshire/Worcestershire, or you basically recreate the old Leominster and try to awkwardly combine Kidderminster (but not Stourport) with Bridgnorth. You then have to work out what to do with Warwickshire, where you've got to put half a seat into one or more cross-border constituencies. Both Solihull seats are fine as is, so we should rule that one out. Coventry is very marginally too small for three seats, but I think the most it could plausibly take is Kenilworth, and that might be pushing it. So I suspect you'll need the Tamworth seat to cross the county boundary and grab Polesworth and environs. Within the West Midlands, Dudley should be able to stand alone with 3 seats and Sandwell almost can. Neither Wolverhampton or Walsall are close, however, so I suspect they'll be paired for 5. Birmingham then needs do donate one ward to Sandwell to secure electoral equality (Soho?) and you've then got the fun task of trying to make 9 seats out of 39 wards. Which may, of course, force an entirely different pattern of arrangements.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 3, 2015 15:41:44 GMT
The East Midlands is simple enough - 43.25 quotas in total, of which Derbyshire has 9.98, Leicestershire & Rutland 9.68, Lincolnshire 6.91, Northants 6.49, Nottinghamshire 10.17.
So Derbyshire, Notts and Lincolnshire can stand alone, with Northants and Leicestershire paired.
The final recommendations of the 6th Review look pretty good for Derbyshire. However, I suspect you'd be able to keep the north-south orientation in Derby itself, which would probably make Derby North safer for the Tories.
In Nottinghamshire, three seats in the north and east (Bassetlaw, Mansfield and Ashfield) can be left unchanged, except for re-aligning with new ward boundaries in Broxtowe district. On the other hand, all the Nottingham seats are considerably undersized. There's plenty of ways of sorting that, but most are going to rely upon having three seats based in the city and two outside. It's just a matter of which out of Carlton, Arnold, Hucknall, Beeston and West Bridgford you include in a Nottingham seat.
Assuming you haven't completely torn up Gedling, the remaining two seats will be one roughly resembling the pre-1983 Newark, stretching from the eponymous town to the Dukeries, and one based on Rushcliffe. If you do tear up Gedling, I guess you could preserve the Newark and Sherwood seats and give the leftover bits of Gedling to Rushcliffe?
Lincolnshire is just going to be a simple tidying up exercise. It might be possible to limit changes to moving two or three rural wards from Sleaford & North Hykeham to Boston & Skegness.
Before deciding where to cross the Leics-Northants boundary, it's probably best to look at what can remain unchanged. In Leicestershire, all the border seats are within 5% of the quota, whereas in Northants Daventry and Kettering are both too small. As Kettering is a more compact seat, Daventry is the best option to be broken up. But before coming on to that, let's consider the rest of Northamptonshire.
Corby can remain as is, so it may as well (I did consider pairing the town with Rutland for the sake of hilarity, but it still works out a bit too small). Wellingborough has seen changes to district wards. If you realign with those, expand to the district boundaries and donate a couple of wards to Kettering, both it and Kettering will be fine.
On the other hand, both Northampton seats are undersized and at least one will have to extend beyond the town's limits. South looks like the best option to me, but YMMV. Whatever decision you make, you're then left with two seats - one covering the south of the county (and possibly extending to Daventry) and one with about 40,000 electors in Northamptonshire and the rest in Leicestershire.
Leicestershire is harder to be specific about, because fewer wards require changes so there aren't as many obvious places to start. Only three seats are undersized (NW Leics, Leicester West, Leicester South) are undersized and Leicester South is only a few hundred from passing muster. You may need ward-swapping between East and South and one will certainly have to extend beyond the city, whether north to Thurmaston, west to the settlement edge or south to Blaby. Leicester West can just grab Braunstone.
Beyond that, the remaining seats will just probably just each shuffle a ward or two in the direction of Northants.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 5, 2015 12:55:18 GMT
The South-East is fairly unexciting. You need to lose two seats, one in Hampshire and one in Kent. Every county can be considered on its own, but it might make it easier if you pair East Sussex and Kent.
The South-West is rather more interesting. Only Gloucestershire can stand alone and even there you have the difficult of getting Forest of Dean within range without putting Gloucester cathedral in the seat.
There are several ways of grouping the rest. Obviously Cornwall has to go with Devon, but after that you've got two basic options. One is to pair Avon with Wiltshire and Dorset with Somerset, the other is to pair Avon with Somerset and Dorset with Wiltshire. The latter is more sensible at a regional level, the former may work better when it comes to specific constituency arrangements.
Within Avon, North Somerset can keep its two seats with no changes at all. Bristol can continue to have four seats to itself, but as West has over 90,000 electors, there will have to be reasonably significant changes within the city.
Neither BANES nor South Gloucestershire can stand alone. If you're pairing them with Somerset then I imagine you'll see Thornbury & Yate grabbing part of Filton & Bradley Stoke, the remainder grabbing the northern end of Kingswood and the southern end adding Keynsham, with the southern bit of North East Somerset being placed with part of Somerset proper. If you're pairing them with Wiltshire, I'd guess that all the constituencies head north, except for the rump of Thornbury & Yate, which stretches over into Wiltshire (Yate & North Wiltshire?).
It's fairly pointless guessing about arrangements elsewhere, because there are too many possibilities. I will note that it looks like you can fit the entirety of Poole and Bournemouth into 3 seats and that Plymstock can probably be placed in a Plymouth seat, but everything else is hard to predict.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,789
|
Post by iain on Jun 5, 2015 13:10:35 GMT
The Forest of Dean is a pain. TBH, it wouldn't surprise me to see the boundary commission put the north of it in with Tewkesbury, and then create 'Severn Banks' with the lower half of the district. Who knows, maybe it could extend all the way down to Bristol
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 5, 2015 13:32:14 GMT
The Forest isn't really the problem, the problem is the shape of Coombe Hill ward in Tewkesbury district. That said, putting Gloucester city centre in with the Forest isn't the end of the world, or if you don't want to do that you can just send the Tewkesbury seat round to the east of Cheltenham rather than the west.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,789
|
Post by iain on Jun 5, 2015 14:44:45 GMT
The Forest isn't really the problem, the problem is the shape of Coombe Hill ward in Tewkesbury district. That said, putting Gloucester city centre in with the Forest isn't the end of the world, or if you don't want to do that you can just send the Tewkesbury seat round to the east of Cheltenham rather than the west. In the last review the splitting of Coombe Hill ward (removing the awkward panhandle) was not enough to take the Forest over quota, meaning it still needed part of Gloucester. The alternative would be to put Innsworth & Down Hatherley into the Forest seat, which is equally unappealing.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 5, 2015 15:39:56 GMT
Longlevens is already in the Tewkesbury seat and Gloucester will need to lose another ward to get within 5% of quota. I can't see that the north of Gloucester has any more to do with Tewkesbury than with the Forest.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,324
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 5, 2015 17:31:46 GMT
I mean half of Forest of Dean district has little to do with the Forest.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,789
|
Post by iain on Jun 5, 2015 17:46:14 GMT
Longlevens is already in the Tewkesbury seat and Gloucester will need to lose another ward to get within 5% of quota. I can't see that the north of Gloucester has any more to do with Tewkesbury than with the Forest. True, although the Gloucester suburbs and places like Brockworth are in the Tewkesbury seat so it is less out on a limb than it would be with the Forest.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jun 6, 2015 17:56:58 GMT
Was trying to work on this earlier on BoundaryAssistant, when I noticed that I think it has been updated to reflect 600(?) seats. When you go into each region now you get:
S-West 53 S-East 81 London 68 Eastern 56 E-Mids 44 W-Mids 53 Yorks/Humb 50 N-West 68 N-East 25 Wales 30 Scotland 50 N.Ireland 16
Add in 2 seats for IoW and the 2 protected Scottish seats and that only equals 598!?
Oops!
I think maybe London is missing 2 seats and should be 70. has anyone else noticed this yet?
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 6, 2015 23:29:00 GMT
Was trying to work on this earlier on BoundaryAssistant, when I noticed that I think it has been updated to reflect 600(?) seats. When you go into each region now you get: S-West 53 S-East 81 London 68 Eastern 56 E-Mids 44 W-Mids 53 Yorks/Humb 50 N-West 68 N-East 25 Wales 30 Scotland 50 N.Ireland 16 Add in 2 seats for IoW and the 2 protected Scottish seats and that only equals 598!? Oops! I think maybe London is missing 2 seats and should be 70. has anyone else noticed this yet? There hasn't been any change. The numbers reflect the Sainte-Lague allocation to regions made at the start of the Sixth Periodic Review. BoundaryAssistant presents 26 seats for the North East, not 25, and 54 seats for the West Midlands, not 53. It all adds up to 600. I don't know why I even bother sometimes.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,248
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jun 7, 2015 0:15:18 GMT
SeatAllocation via D'Hondt would be better.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 7, 2015 3:59:24 GMT
SeatAllocation via D'Hondt would be better. No it wouldn't. Allocation of seats to regions by Sainte-Lague makes sense because it is slightly weighted in favour of smaller regions. D'Hondt is better for allocating seats to parties within regions.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,248
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jun 7, 2015 14:36:03 GMT
SeatAllocation via D'Hondt would be better. No it wouldn't. Allocation of seats to regions by Sainte-Lague makes sense because it is slightly weighted in favour of smaller regions. Yes, that's the problem: It FAVORS the small.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 7, 2015 14:45:29 GMT
Under D'Hondt, England would have received 502 seats, despite only being entitled to 500.16. Is that fair?
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,248
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jun 7, 2015 19:04:01 GMT
If the relation England:Scotland/Wales/NI=502:../../.. , than it is deserved!
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 11, 2015 8:48:53 GMT
Constituencies
Lucy Powell: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when he plans to enact the reduction in the number of seats in this House from 650 to 600. [1252] Lucy Powell: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2015 to Question 263, whether it remains his policy to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies from 650 to 600. [1274] John Penrose: The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies (PVSC) Act 2011 provides for the number of constituencies to be reduced from 650 to 600 and the Government remains committed to equalising the size of constituencies in order to make votes of more equal value. The Government will outline its plans for constituency boundaries when it responds to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, What next on the redrawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries?, in due course. The Boundary Commissions are due to commence work on their next reviews of Parliamentary constituencies in spring 2016 in order to submit final reports by 1 October 2018. If approved, the new constituencies would take effect at the next General Election. Emily Thornberry: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the Government plans to bring forward legislative proposals to alter the procedure by which the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions take effect upon the conclusion of their periodic reviews of constituency boundaries. [698] John Penrose: The Government remains committed to equalising the size of constituencies in order to make votes of more equal value. The Government will outline its plans for constituency boundaries when it responds to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, What next on the redrawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries?, in due course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 9:00:25 GMT
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,417
|
Post by Crimson King on Jun 11, 2015 14:22:51 GMT
Interesting, do we have any idea what "in due course" might mean?
|
|