2018 review - Yorkshire and the Humber

[YL]

Ceremonial counties:

South Yorkshire 12.74
West Yorkshire 20.30
Lincolnshire (part) 3.11
East Riding 5.74
North Yorkshire (part) 7.89

Total 49.78

All can in principle be treated on their own, though it's going to be tight to make it work in the East Riding (5.70 is the minimum for six seats) and Lincolnshire (3.15 being the maximum for 5).

Solutions could be similar to last time, with part of North Lincs in an East Riding seat, and consideration being given to crossing the SY/WY boundary. Alternatively the Lincs/SY border could be crossed, but that leaves the East Riding tricky.

[YL]

Metropolitan Boroughs

Barnsley 2.24
Doncaster 2.83
Rotherham 2.57
Sheffield 5.10

Bradford 4.37
Calderdale 1.91
Kirklees 3.95
Leeds 6.89
Wakefield 3.17

Grouping Bradford and Calderdale is just possible (the entitlement is 6.28, compared with a maximum of 6.30 for six seats). If that happened, Leeds could be treated on its own, but I suspect a more likely solution is to group Leeds and Bradford for 11 seats or Leeds, Bradford and Calderdale for 13. Including part of Wakefield with South Yorks would then allow Kirklees to be treated on its own.

In South Yorkshire, only Sheffield could be treated on its own. A Wakefield/Doncaster pairing might be worth considering (entitlement 6.00); Barnsley and Rotherham make 4.81, so could be considered as a pair for 5 seats or combined with Sheffield for 10.

It depends quite a lot on to what extent the BCE are going to countenance ward splitting.

[J.G.Harston]

A first stab, adding up Dr Jordan's model from last time gives:
North-West 79,000
South-West 74,000
South 78,000
South-East 76,000
North 74,000
Ignore the numbers on the map, they are the zombie figures. This is just a first stab without taking account of new ward boundaries and estimating the splits of Walkley and Burngreave, but shows it could progress to a workable model.

When my printer stops chewing up paper I can shuffle some real numbers around.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 24, 2016 18:03:14 GMT YL said:

(snippy)

I'd recommend something like this:

[greenhert]

This data also means that the cross-county Brigg and Goole seat can be abolished, leaving three seats entirely within North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. I believe these will be Brigg & Cleethorpes, Scunthorpe, and Grimsby (renamed version of Great Grimsby with new and extended boundaries) which no longer needs to be split up. Within East Yorkshire, Goole itself can be paired with Howden. The East Yorkshire constituency should get its old name of Bridlington back.

[YL]

I'm a convinced ward splitter, but I've had a quick look at what you can do in Sheffield if you don't. These wards will of course be abolished in May, so is it really worth trying too hard with them?

Most combinations of 5 wards are too small, and most combinations of 6 are too big.

The zombie review's seats mostly don't work: "Sheffield Hallam & Penistone", "Sheffield North & Dodworth" and "Sheffield Heeley" are all too big, and "Sheffield Central" is too small. However, its "Sheffield South East" (Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Richmond, Woodhouse, Manor Castle) still works as a 6 ward seat (77,792), and you can tinker a bit at the edges: Arbourthorne could come in for Woodhouse, for example.

There are some 5 ward combinations which work based on Crookes and Stannington, e.g. the current Hallam could lose Dore & Totley and gain either Walkley (71,249) or Stocksbridge & Upper Don (71,363), or you could have a north-west seat made up of Crookes, Stannington, Stocksbridge & Upper Don, Hillsborough and Walkley (71,618).

[newsouthender]

Good grief - the Headingley ward electorate in Leeds has gone down from 13,384 to 8,948. Going to be some big changes in student areas.

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2016 21:26:06 GMT newsouthender said:

Good grief - the Headingley ward electorate in Leeds has gone down from 13,384 to 8,948. Going to be some big changes in student areas.

There goes "Leeds Metropolitan and Ossett"

[greenhert]

Feb 24, 2016 21:34:12 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Feb 24, 2016 21:26:06 GMT newsouthender said:

Good grief - the Headingley ward electorate in Leeds has gone down from 13,384 to 8,948. Going to be some big changes in student areas.

There goes "Leeds Metropolitan and Ossett"

I believe the zombie review would have actually put Headingley into a new Leeds North constituency.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 24, 2016 20:31:07 GMT YL said:

I'm a convinced ward splitter, but I've had a quick look at what you can do in Sheffield if you don't. These wards will of course be abolished in May, so is it really worth trying too hard with them?

No, which is why I'm waiting until I have time this weekend to put the numbers on this map:

[J.G.Harston]

I emailed Sheffield Elections and they've replied saying they're putting together the parliamentary electorate figures on the new wards. I forgot to ask them, but they usually supply it at polling district level.

[J.G.Harston]

Some initial calculations converting the 2015 local electorate into nominal 2015 parliamentary electorates on the new ward boundaries.

The city falls easily into three distinct blocks:
North-West+South-West : 2.00 seats (west of Don/Sheaf)
South: 1.05 seats (Heeley + Manor ward)
North-East_South-East: 1.95 seats (east of Don/Heeley)
So, 1 x New Heeley and one split ward each in the other two blocks to give a New Hillsborough, New Hallam, New Brightside and New Attercliffe.

However, that puts New Heeley on 79,700-ish, 1250 over the ceiling so a bit of shaving will force a smidge out somewhere. I think I'd add the lump sticking out of Richmond which is about 1500 back into South-East which gives South: 1.02 and NE+SE: 1.97, all within a couple of percent or so of quota.

[YL]

Here is a first attempt at South Yorkshire. I decided to first play with the option that keeps Stocksbridge & Upper Don in a Barnsley seat; for now I'll leave J.G.Harston to look at the option that divides the Sheffield city area into five whole seats.

Doncaster's three seats are all slightly below quota, and there are new ward boundaries (in this case, already being used by the Commission). To deal with this, I'm going to borrow South Elmsall & South Kirkby ward from Wakefield. As mentioned above, the borough and county numbers suggest crossing this boundary, and that ward is the obvious way to do it. Anyway, it goes into Doncaster North & Moorthorpe (75,064) which is otherwise the existing Doncaster North without its parts of Thorne & Moorends and Stainforth & Barnby Dun wards. The latter goes to Doncaster Central (72,729) and the former to Don Valley (75,835) which also takes in all of the split Tickhill & Wadworth ward. The eastern extension to Doncaster Central looks a bit odd on the map, but it's a fairly simple solution.

Rother Valley (73,511) can remain unchanged. Rotherham (71,116) just about makes it if it gains Wickersley. [There is a case for swapping Wickersley and Sitwell between these seats, but I don't think the BCE would do it.] The numbers don't seem to work out with the two Dearne wards being in the Rotherham/Barnsley cross-border seat, so instead group Silverwood, Rawmarsh, Swinton, Wath and Hoober wards of Rotherham with Wombwell, Rockingham and Hoyland Milton of Barnsley to form Wentworth & Wombwell (72,925).

The rest of Barnsley is then a tight fit electorate-wise, but the first thing I tried just works. The Dearne wards go back into Barnsley East (78,494) together with Darfield, Cudworth, Stairfoot, Worsbrough, North East, Royston, Monk Bretton and St. Helen's, and the rest of Barnsley together with Stocksbridge & Upper Don makes Barnsley West & Stocksbridge (78,116).

In Sheffield, if we work with the old wards (the ones we have figures for) Sheffield Hallam (71,249) can take Walkley instead of Dore & Totley. Elsewhere I'm going to split a couple of wards. The Ecclesfield wards come into Sheffield Hillsborough (82,308-x) which, compared with the existing Brightside & Hillsborough, needs to lose Burngreave and the Brightside part of Shiregreen & Brightside. The latter joins the existing Sheffield South East which I'm going to rename Sheffield Attercliffe & Brightside (66,987+x). Sheffield Central (67,319+y) loses Walkley and gains Burngreave and the Norfolk Park part of Arbourthorne, the rest of which stays in Sheffield Heeley (79,238-y) which took on Dore & Totley. That's not too much change in Sheffield all things considering.

If you use the new wards in Sheffield, I assume Hallam must come within quota by realigning with the new ward boundaries. Walkley can then stay in Central, which should probably then take on Hillsborough instead of Burngreave (giving some naming issues) and split Manor Castle with Heeley (which doesn't need Dore) instead of Arbourthorne.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 25, 2016 18:37:39 GMT YL said:

Here is a first attempt at South Yorkshire. I decided to first play with the option that keeps Stocksbridge & Upper Don in a Barnsley seat; for now I'll leave J.G.Harston to look at the option that divides the Sheffield city area into five whole seats.

these are the intial figures I've been using for Sheffield's new wards until Election Services send the actual numbers next week.

[andrewteale]

If the experience of 2013 is anything to go by, the BCE are going to use the old wards for Sheffield.

[krollo]

I just looked at the numbers for North Yorkshire, because what else are Thursday evenings for?

Anyway, there is very little change, as expected. Selby and Ainsty, Skipton and Ripon, Harrogate and Knaresborough and both York seats can go unaltered as far as I can see. Issues in Scarborough seem to make it easier to bring Thirsk and Malton up to the coast through Danby, Esk Valley and Mulgrave (and IMO Filey seems to go more naturally with Scarborough anyway), and the new wards may mean some minor tinkering between T&M and Richmond. But yes, on the whole a fairly uninteresting county.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 25, 2016 19:41:48 GMT andrewteale said:

If the experience of 2013 is anything to go by, the BCE are going to use the old wards for Sheffield.

The legislation requires them to use last December's electorate figures. The legislation does not require them to use the wards in existance last December as building blocks. Where there is a supportable argument to split the wards that the figures have been arbitartily grouped into, then wards will be split. A supportable argument would be to split wards is along the split lines that would result in the new wards being the major building blocks.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 25, 2016 21:47:02 GMT krollo said:

Issues in Scarborough seem to make it easier to bring Thirsk and Malton up to the coast through Danby, Esk Valley and Mulgrave (and IMO Filey seems to go more naturally with Scarborough anyway), and the new wards may mean some minor tinkering between T&M and Richmond. But yes, on the whole a fairly uninteresting county.

As a Whitbian (?) I'd prefer a seat when the whole of the traditional Whitby District was in the same seat - the area previously Whitby Rural and Urban Districts, the SBC area north of Ravenscar/Flask Inn. It's a coherent entity both formed by the whole Esk Valley and separated from the outside by the watersheads of the Esk Valley. Agree that only minor tinkering needed county-wide.

[John Chanin]

Note that using old wards and refusing to split them is contradictory. This could be an important argument, and not just in Sheffield.

[YL]

Feb 26, 2016 0:19:37 GMT John Chanin said:

Note that using old wards and refusing to split them is contradictory. This could be an important argument, and not just in Sheffield.

It's what they did last time, though. Indeed, it's what gave us Mersey Banks.