Sixth Periodic Review (Redux)

[Deleted]

Still stuck south of the Ribble - I assume that the forum won't be welcoming of "Blackburn West and Bamber Bridge", the only solution I could find to a current bind.

[East Anglian Lefty]

May 25, 2015 17:13:54 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Still stuck south of the Ribble - I assume that the forum won't be welcoming of "Blackburn West and Bamber Bridge", the only solution I could find to a current bind.

Then you're doing it totally wrong. Using your parameters, Hyndburn plus Darwen plus Blackburn adds up to almost exactly three seats.

EDIT: 10 minutes work suggests the following arrangement, which isn't pretty but wouldn't be pitchfork-bait:

No change to Morecambe & Lunesdale; Pendle; Burnley; Hyndburn; Rossendale & Darwen; Blackburn; Chorley.

Lancaster & Wyre made up of Lancaster plus parts of Wyre east of the estuary. A new Fleetwood & Cleveleys seat made up of the urban parts of Wyre, plus two wards from Blackpool. Blackpool North shifts south to regain numbers, Blackpool South extends along the coast as far as Lytham. The rest of Fylde goes with Fulwood (also Ingol and Lea wards.) Preston adds Penwortham from South Ribble. Ribble Valley loses Farington to South Ribble. South Ribble gains Scarisbrick from West Lancs.

It'd be rather more difficult with a 5% limit, but with 10% there are plenty of options.

[Sharon]

Looking at the Hampshire, Portsmouth & Southampton revised proposals, Meon Valley would disappear - this was the new one in 2010.

The initial proposals for Southampton were a veritable pig's ear - splitting the City between 4 different constituencies - I was glad that the revised proposals kept Itchen as it is at present, with Test keeping its current 7 wards, and adding in Swaythling - the only City ward that wouldn't be in a City constituency is Bassett, which pre-2010 was in Romsey.

[Pete Whitehead]

I don't see much point doing any of this until we have the up to date ward electorate figures

[Khunanup]

May 26, 2015 13:09:33 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I don't see much point doing any of this until we have the up to date ward electorate figures

We also need to know if it's gong to be 650 or 600 MPs. If it's 650 then the changes will be much less major than they would have been and I now expect that to be the case as Cameron doesn't want to have to pick a fight with a substantial number of backbencher a unnecessarily.

What would the quota be for the UK under current electorate for 650?

[Pete Whitehead]

Its 71,420 which was the figure Dok was using, with a 10% variance but the ward date he was using is based on December 2011

[Pete Whitehead]

Also there's going to be different wards to use as building blocks in quite alot of places

[East Anglian Lefty]

Starting to take a look at this for Eastern England using the general election constituency electorates. Essex and Norfolk can both retain their current number of seats. Cambridgeshire definitely gains one and Suffolk just about deserves an eighth seat, but with a 5% limit it'd realistically have to be paired with Cambridgeshire.

As Pete says, there's a large amount of guesswork where we don't have up to date ward electorates. However, I've got up to date parish figures for Cambridgeshire and Suffolk and changes have been fairly limited since 2010 in Essex, so I think I can do best guesses for all three.

Essex:

Theoretical entitlement to 18.07 seats including the unitaries, so obviously no need to pair it. My figures have an English quota of 71593 rather than 71420 (and England getting 540 seats instead of 539), but this arrangement would probably work easier with the lower figure anyway so I don't think it signifies.

5% limit means nothing smaller than 68,014, which requires changes to Basildon & Billericay; Harlow; Southend West; and Witham. Also means nothing larger than 75173, which requires changes to Chelmsford; Rayleigh & Wickford; Saffron Walden; and Thurrock. All the rest are within the limit, though only by a couple of hundred in Castle Point's case. Ward reviews have recently completed or are in their final stage in Braintree; Colchester; Rochford; and Uttlesford districts and hence new constituency boundaries must follow those.



Beginning in the north-east, Clacton can stay as is. Harwich & North Essex must lose East Donyland ward, all of which will be moved into Colchester wards from 2016, but will gain most of the present Lexden ward. This makes the inclusion of Mersea in the seat even odder, but the new ward boundaries make it difficult to avoid without a messy split of Colchester. Aside from the aforementioned swaps, Colchester needs no further change.

Witham then heads north to re-align with ward boundaries. That probably makes Braintree undersized, so I picked off a few Uttlesford wards (fitting as closely to new ward boundaries as possible), which also gets Saffron Walden within the acceptable range.

The removal of Galleywood ward from Chelmsford to Maldon should get both within quota. Harlow gains one ward from Epping Forest and Brentwood & Ongar is unchanged.

Thurrock needs to lose a ward and Chadwell St. Mary seems like the only vaguely justifiable option. South Basildon & East Thurrock then needs to pass a ward on to Basildon & Billericay and Vange seems like the best bet. Castle Point can stay as is, assuming nobody prunes the register there any time soon.

Southend West needs to gain a ward and Victoria is probably the best option. The boundary changes in Rochford are a bit of a bugger, but I think aligning with ward boundaries then moving the Hawkwell wards into Rochford & Southend East should make both it and Rayleigh & Wickford pass muster, if only barely.

Net electoral impact is minimal - Conservatives slightly safer in Thurrock but not enough to win in an even year, everywhere else much of a muchness.

[Harry Hayfield]

Seeing as the main problem with Wales is the North and the Mid, that's the areas that I have tackled and come up with this as a result. Starting from north to south we have Ynys Môn, Caernarfon and Bangor (70,163), followed by Snowdonia (69,770). Both of these seats should in theory be Plaid Cymru wins based on the general election but the effect of adding Conservative Aberconwy to Plaid Dwyfor would be very interesting. Next door we have Clwyd North West (70,703) with Rhyl, Denbigh and Prestatyn (69,122) and Flint and Ruthin (71,312) bringing back the natural curved seats that we had until the invention of Clwyd West and Vale of Clwyd. Now for the county of Wrexham I have decided to go back a bit and bring back a name we haven't seen for a while so the constituency to the left of Wrexham I have called Wrexham Boroughs (71,256) and the rest of the county is called Wrexham Town (68,616) and then comes the really fun part Mid Wales.

The purple constituency at the top North Wales Rural is a right old mashup of seats but as it generates an electorate of 71,151 it fits the bill and therefore given that Wales will have to lose eight seats is a viable option, just as Heart of Wales in the middle of Wales (69,903) which leaves the bottom part of Mid Wales which I think should be named Brecon Beacons and the Cambrians in honour of the main features that it contains and at an electorate of 70,711 also fits the bill. South and West Wales are so easy after that, someone else have can a go!

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Your Snowdonia seat is going to get renamed to something in Welsh. Better call it Llwybrau'r Wyddfa.

[Philip Davies]

When I drew the constituencies in Wales for the aborted review I had a seat called Snowdonia. For the Welsh name I though Eryri was more appropriate.

The South Wales valleys was the trickiest part from what I can remember.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I took a look at Wales with 32 seats a couple of years back. From reviewing my working, it appears that it was possible to get seven seats out of Clwyd and Gwynedd and a further one from Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire.

Obviously, this does leave Brecknockshire out on its own. It appears I paired it with Merthyr (not ideal, I know), but if the intention was to preserve a more rural character then Dinefwr and change is a plausible option.

[Philip Davies]

May 26, 2015 13:24:33 GMT Khunanup said:

May 26, 2015 13:09:33 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I don't see much point doing any of this until we have the up to date ward electorate figures

We also need to know if it's gong to be 650 or 600 MPs. If it's 650 then the changes will be much less major than they would have been and I now expect that to be the case as Cameron doesn't want to have to pick a fight with a substantial number of backbencher a unnecessarily.

What would the quota be for the UK under current electorate for 650?

I wouldn't be surprised if the number was cut to 635/640/645 with most of the losses being in Wales.

[ohhowshechanged]

May 26, 2015 15:58:24 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Seeing as the main problem with Wales is the North and the Mid, that's the areas that I have tackled and come up with this as a result. Starting from north to south we have Ynys Môn, Caernarfon and Bangor (70,163), followed by Snowdonia (69,770). Both of these seats should in theory be Plaid Cymru wins based on the general election but the effect of adding Conservative Aberconwy to Plaid Dwyfor would be very interesting. Next door we have Clwyd North West (70,703) with Rhyl, Denbigh and Prestatyn (69,122) and Flint and Ruthin (71,312) bringing back the natural curved seats that we had until the invention of Clwyd West and Vale of Clwyd. Now for the county of Wrexham I have decided to go back a bit and bring back a name we haven't seen for a while so the constituency to the left of Wrexham I have called Wrexham Boroughs (71,256) and the rest of the county is called Wrexham Town (68,616) and then comes the really fun part Mid Wales.

The purple constituency at the top North Wales Rural is a right old mashup of seats but as it generates an electorate of 71,151 it fits the bill and therefore given that Wales will have to lose eight seats is a viable option, just as Heart of Wales in the middle of Wales (69,903) which leaves the bottom part of Mid Wales which I think should be named Brecon Beacons and the Cambrians in honour of the main features that it contains and at an electorate of 70,711 also fits the bill. South and West Wales are so easy after that, someone else have can a go!

Brecon and Cardigan in the same seat - are you sure?

[cibwr]

May 26, 2015 13:09:33 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I don't see much point doing any of this until we have the up to date ward electorate figures

I tend to agree Richard, and we still have no idea what the local government map - let alone ward structure in Wales will be, which makes the Welsh exercise doubly irrelevant at the moment.

[East Anglian Lefty]

May 26, 2015 18:08:45 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

May 26, 2015 15:10:06 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Starting to take a look at this for Eastern England using the general election constituency electorates. Essex and Norfolk can both retain their current number of seats. Cambridgeshire definitely gains one and Suffolk just about deserves an eighth seat, but with a 5% limit it'd realistically have to be paired with Cambridgeshire.

As Pete says, there's a large amount of guesswork where we don't have up to date ward electorates. However, I've got up to date parish figures for Cambridgeshire and Suffolk and changes have been fairly limited since 2010 in Essex, so I think I can do best guesses for all three.

Essex:

Theoretical entitlement to 18.07 seats including the unitaries, so obviously no need to pair it. My figures have an English quota of 71593 rather than 71420 (and England getting 540 seats instead of 539), but this arrangement would probably work easier with the lower figure anyway so I don't think it signifies.

5% limit means nothing smaller than 68,014, which requires changes to Basildon & Billericay; Harlow; Southend West; and Witham. Also means nothing larger than 75173, which requires changes to Chelmsford; Rayleigh & Wickford; Saffron Walden; and Thurrock. All the rest are within the limit, though only by a couple of hundred in Castle Point's case. Ward reviews have recently completed or are in their final stage in Braintree; Colchester; Rochford; and Uttlesford districts and hence new constituency boundaries must follow those.



Beginning in the north-east, Clacton can stay as is. Harwich & North Essex must lose East Donyland ward, all of which will be moved into Colchester wards from 2016, but will gain most of the present Lexden ward. This makes the inclusion of Mersea in the seat even odder, but the new ward boundaries make it difficult to avoid without a messy split of Colchester. Aside from the aforementioned swaps, Colchester needs no further change.

Witham then heads north to re-align with ward boundaries. That probably makes Braintree undersized, so I picked off a few Uttlesford wards (fitting as closely to new ward boundaries as possible), which also gets Saffron Walden within the acceptable range.

The removal of Galleywood ward from Chelmsford to Maldon should get both within quota. Harlow gains one ward from Epping Forest and Brentwood & Ongar is unchanged.

Thurrock needs to lose a ward and Chadwell St. Mary seems like the only vaguely justifiable option. South Basildon & East Thurrock then needs to pass a ward on to Basildon & Billericay and Vange seems like the best bet. Castle Point can stay as is, assuming nobody prunes the register there any time soon.

Southend West needs to gain a ward and Victoria is probably the best option. The boundary changes in Rochford are a bit of a bugger, but I think aligning with ward boundaries then moving the Hawkwell wards into Rochford & Southend East should make both it and Rayleigh & Wickford pass muster, if only barely.

Net electoral impact is minimal - Conservatives slightly safer in Thurrock but not enough to win in an even year, everywhere else much of a muchness.

I like most of these seats, but not too sure about Southend West/Rochford and Southend East. 

I dislike rather more than that, but those two seats are as close to the current arrangement as I could get them. The Boundary Commission will, all things being equal, tend to prefer a least change option. What specifically bothers you about those?

[Khunanup]

May 26, 2015 18:07:36 GMT cibwr said:

May 26, 2015 13:09:33 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I don't see much point doing any of this until we have the up to date ward electorate figures

I tend to agree Richard, and we still have no idea what the local government map - let alone ward structure in Wales will be, which makes the Welsh exercise doubly irrelevant at the moment.

The electorates, and therefore the wards used, will be December 2015 so we know exactly what they are in Wales and pretty much everywhere else, apart from places that have reviews that will be finalised before then.

[kevinlarkin]

May 26, 2015 18:27:08 GMT Khunanup said:

May 26, 2015 18:07:36 GMT cibwr said:

I tend to agree Richard, and we still have no idea what the local government map - let alone ward structure in Wales will be, which makes the Welsh exercise doubly irrelevant at the moment.

The electorates, and therefore the wards used, will be December 2015 so we know exactly what they are in Wales and pretty much everywhere else, apart from places that have reviews that will be finalised before then.

The legislation makes it clear that the wards to be used are the wards at the time of the last ordinary elections held in each local authority area prior to the commencement of the review. This is the May 2015 wards for almost everywhere in England, even if reviews taking effect in 2016 or later have been completed before December (so it will be the old wards in Sheffield, Peterborough, Colchester, Lincoln and Woking). In Wales and Scotland it will be the May 2012 ward boundaries and in Northern Ireland the full re-warding first used in May 2014.

[Khunanup]

May 26, 2015 19:53:30 GMT kevinlarkin said:

May 26, 2015 18:27:08 GMT Khunanup said:

The electorates, and therefore the wards used, will be December 2015 so we know exactly what they are in Wales and pretty much everywhere else, apart from places that have reviews that will be finalised before then.

The legislation makes it clear that the wards to be used are the wards at the time of the last ordinary elections held in each local authority area prior to the commencement of the review. This is the May 2015 wards for almost everywhere in England, even if reviews taking effect in 2016 or later have been completed before December (so it will be the old wards in Sheffield, Peterborough, Colchester, Lincoln and Woking). In Wales and Scotland it will be the May 2012 ward boundaries and in Northern Ireland the full re-warding first used in May 2014.

Ah right, thanks for clarifying. The only bit I was entirely sure about was the electorates!

[J.G.Harston]

May 26, 2015 19:53:30 GMT kevinlarkin said:

The legislation makes it clear that the wards to be used are the wards at the time of the last ordinary elections held in each local authority area prior to the commencement of the review. This is the May 2015 wards for almost everywhere in England, even if reviews taking effect in 2016 or later have been completed before December (so it will be the old wards in Sheffield, Peterborough, Colchester, Lincoln and Woking).

Right, that means a submission with a very strong argument to cross ward boundaries - in a manner that just happens to end up following the 2016 ward boundaries.

For a 600-seat chamber the previous Jordan model with minor tweeks to align with new wards would work perfectly in Sheffield giving a whole number of seats within Sheffield. Any 600-seat model that spreads over Sheffield's boundaries would be a peverse obsession with a particular subset of the boundary rules for no justifiable benefit.

For a 650-seat chamber the existing 5-and-a-half seats with minor tweeks to align to new wards would work perfectly.