2018 review - Yorkshire and the Humber

[Adrian]

That's actually quite impressive. I just hope the BCE don't see it!

[islington]

Minion -

A fine scheme. And I think you can improve it slightly by putting Maltby and Dinnington wards into your red seat (which then becomes Maltby & Rawmarsh (73655)) and switching Rother Vale and Holderness the other way to give you a more definite Rother Valley seat (75822).

And your Sheffield Central, although not pretty, is a definite improvement on the Hillsborough mash-up in the earlier non-split schemes posted by YL and ASV.

On the other hand, the Brightside/Hillsborough seat is horrible, the Wentworth/Ecclesfield thing isn't great either, and it feels wrong to put so much of Sheffield (two whole wards) into a seat based on Rotherham.

So on the whole, I still overall prefer the YL version as amended by ASV. But great effort, though.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Aug 26, 2016 17:46:29 GMT islington said:

I still overall prefer the YL version as amended by ASV

Oh, thank you islington

[islington]

Or, how about this - - ?



Sheffield Hallam and Penistone - 77862: This is as per Minion's plan above. It contains the Hallamshire Hospital and Hallamshire Golf Course, so can I get away with 'Hallam' as a name? 'Sheffield West' would be a defensible alternative.
Sheffield Central - 71452: Also as per Minion.
Sheffield Hillsborough - 77695: The name has the merit of familiarity, although Hillsborough is very much at one end of the seat. The Penistone East ward (which does not contain Penistone itself) is not a very natural addition to this seat, but at least this scheme is better than linking Rotherham's Keppel ward with a Sheffield seat, plus it avoids the three-borough arrangement in Minion's plan. This seat could be 'Sheffield North'.
Sheffield Attercliffe - 76841: Or 'Sheffield East'. This looks a very solid seat to me, with Brinsworth a relatively logical ward to borrow from Rotherham.
Sheffield Heeley - 78448: As in many other plans. If we're using compass-points, this completes the set as 'Sheffield South'.
Barnsley North - 71128: As in most other plans.
Barnsley South - 71775: Also seen many times before. If preferred, the Barnsley seats could exchange Central and Dodworth wards.
Wentworth - 71972
Rotherham - 72571: I've managed to get most of Rotherham town into this seat. Moreover, unlike the other non-split plans above, I've (a) avoided putting any Sheffield wards in a Rotherham-based seat, and (b) managed to be somewhat more respectful of the existing pattern in the Rotherham area.
Rother Valley - 71519: Also as seen before.

[YL]

Aug 27, 2016 7:15:02 GMT islington said:

Or, how about this - - ?



Sheffield Hallam and Penistone - 77862: This is as per Minion's plan above. It contains the Hallamshire Hospital and Hallamshire Golf Course, so can I get away with 'Hallam' as a name? 'Sheffield West' would be a defensible alternative.
Sheffield Central - 71452: Also as per Minion.
Sheffield Hillsborough - 77695: The name has the merit of familiarity, although Hillsborough is very much at one end of the seat. The Penistone East ward (which does not contain Penistone itself) is not a very natural addition to this seat, but at least this scheme is better than linking Rotherham's Keppel ward with a Sheffield seat, plus it avoids the three-borough arrangement in Minion's plan. This seat could be 'Sheffield North'.
Sheffield Attercliffe - 76841: Or 'Sheffield East'. This looks a very solid seat to me, with Brinsworth a relatively logical ward to borrow from Rotherham.
Sheffield Heeley - 78448: As in many other plans. If we're using compass-points, this completes the set as 'Sheffield South'.
Barnsley North - 71128: As in most other plans.
Barnsley South - 71775: Also seen many times before. If preferred, the Barnsley seats could exchange Central and Dodworth wards.
Wentworth - 71972
Rotherham - 72571: I've managed to get most of Rotherham town into this seat. Moreover, unlike the other non-split plans above, I've (a) avoided putting any Sheffield wards in a Rotherham-based seat, and (b) managed to be somewhat more respectful of the existing pattern in the Rotherham area.
Rother Valley - 71519: Also as seen before.

The west Sheffield arrangement is crazy, and the treatment of Penistone East unfortunate, but otherwise this is not too bad. You might want to look at whether you can avoid splitting the parishes of Maltby and Aston cum Aughton, though.

[minionofmidas]

I think the appropriate term for the Hallam / Pennine / whatever seat is "thoughtcrime".

[islington]

I posted the latest split-free Sheffield scheme in some haste yesterday, but now that I've had more time to mull it over I find that it's distinctly growing on me.

Yes, I accept YL's chacterization of the plan for the west Sheffield area as 'crazy' and the treatment of Penistone E as 'unfortunate', but I'd like to say a few words in defence of the overall scheme as compared with the other non-splitting schemes recently put forward by YL, ASV and MoM (to all of which, however, I'm pleased to acknowledge a substantial debt).

• The seats of Sheffield Central and Sheffield Hallam & Penistone are lifted from MoM and I don't think anyone would argue that these are great seats. But I think they are slightly less bad than the YL/ASV arrangement in this area, which involved a very awkward Hillsborough/Ecclesall seat with poor connectivity and no natural point of focus. By contrast, the Sheffield Central seat, despite its dramatically involuted shape, has reasonable internal comms and a clear focus in the city centre. And while all plans share an unsatisfactory 'western borders' seat (we have come up with a variety of names for it), it is certainly no worse in MoM's/my version; arguably, it is slightly better in that it is more definitely a Sheffield seat with a clearer base in the Hallam area, as I propose to reflect in the name (although I acknowledge that a 'Hallam' seat ought ideally to include Crookes ward). The tacking-on of Dore is obviously unsatisfactory, although this feature is common to all the non-split schemes. But if you can swallow all these problems in west Sheffield, then my scheme has real merits elsewhere.
• In the first place, it is more respectful of the Sheffield boundary than any of the other non-split schemes. Essentially, three non-Sheffield wards are swapped in (the two Penistone wards of Barnsley and the Brinsworth ward of Rotherham) and two Sheffield wards are swapped out, both in the far southeast of the City (Beighton and Mosborough). This gives us a 'virtual' Sheffield of 29 wards, which yields two seats wholly within the city (Central with 5 wards and Heeley with 6), with the other three seats each consisting of 5 Sheffield wards and one 'external' ward. So 26 out of 28 Sheffield wards are in Sheffield seats and no Sheffield seat contains more than one 'external' ward; it's thus pretty clear, compared with the other non-split schemes, what is a Sheffield seat and what is not.
• It's also kinder to the Rotherham area than other non-split schemes, with three seats based wholly or mainly in the borough that, despite significant changes, are recognizably the successors of the existing seats in the area. I'm pleased with the Rotherham seat - admittedly, it would ideally extend farther north and not so far south, but on the other hand, the most of the town of Rotherham, including the central area, is captured in the seat. Also, it lies wholly within the borough and does not require reinforcement by a Sheffield ward or two as in other plans. The Wentworth seat, too, looks pretty reasonable.

[emidsanorak]

Aug 28, 2016 8:13:09 GMT islington said:

I posted the latest split-free Sheffield scheme in some haste yesterday, but now that I've had more time to mull it over I find that it's distinctly growing on me.

Yes, I accept YL's chacterization of the plan for the west Sheffield area as 'crazy' and the treatment of Penistone E as 'unfortunate', but I'd like to say a few words in defence of the overall scheme as compared with the other non-splitting schemes recently put forward by YL, ASV and MoM (to all of which, however, I'm pleased to acknowledge a substantial debt).

• The seats of Sheffield Central and Sheffield Hallam & Penistone are lifted from MoM and I don't think anyone would argue that these are great seats. But I think they are slightly less bad than the YL/ASV arrangement in this area, which involved a very awkward Hillsborough/Ecclesall seat with poor connectivity and no natural point of focus. By contrast, the Sheffield Central seat, despite its dramatically involuted shape, has reasonable internal comms and a clear focus in the city centre. And while all plans share an unsatisfactory 'western borders' seat (we have come up with a variety of names for it), it is certainly no worse in MoM's/my version; arguably, it is slightly better in that it is more definitely a Sheffield seat with a clearer base in the Hallam area, as I propose to reflect in the name (although I acknowledge that a 'Hallam' seat ought ideally to include Crookes ward). The tacking-on of Dore is obviously unsatisfactory, although this feature is common to all the non-split schemes. But if you can swallow all these problems in west Sheffield, then my scheme has real merits elsewhere.
• In the first place, it is more respectful of the Sheffield boundary than any of the other non-split schemes. Essentially, three non-Sheffield wards are swapped in (the two Penistone wards of Barnsley and the Brinsworth ward of Rotherham) and two Sheffield wards are swapped out, both in the far southeast of the City (Beighton and Mosborough). This gives us a 'virtual' Sheffield of 29 wards, which yields two seats wholly within the city (Central with 5 wards and Heeley with 6), with the other three seats each consisting of 5 Sheffield wards and one 'external' ward. So 26 out of 28 Sheffield wards are in Sheffield seats and no Sheffield seat contains more than one 'external' ward; it's thus pretty clear, compared with the other non-split schemes, what is a Sheffield seat and what is not.
• It's also kinder to the Rotherham area than other non-split schemes, with three seats based wholly or mainly in the borough that, despite significant changes, are recognizably the successors of the existing seats in the area. I'm pleased with the Rotherham seat - admittedly, it would ideally extend farther north and not so far south, but on the other hand, the most of the town of Rotherham, including the central area, is captured in the seat. Also, it lies wholly within the borough and does not require reinforcement by a Sheffield ward or two as in other plans. The Wentworth seat, too, looks pretty reasonable.

[emidsanorak]

The real problem with your Sheffield Hallam & Penistone is the fact that it has no internal communication between the Dore & Totley ward and the rest of the constituency. I think Sheffield needs at least one ward split but, if you really want it without one, why not try working up a scheme for South Yorkshire (12.74) and Derbyshire (10.12)?

[minionofmidas]

Aug 28, 2016 9:26:36 GMT emidsanorak said:

The real problem with your Sheffield Hallam & Penistone is the fact that it has no internal communication between the Dore & Totley ward and the rest of the constituency. I think Sheffield needs at least one ward split but, if you really want it without one, why not try working up a scheme for South Yorkshire (12.74) and Derbyshire (10.12)?

Because that's right out under the Commission's rules as announced?

I belive it's not possible to draw a whole wards map within the region without that insane Dore & Totley pseudo-connection. If anybody finds one, I will be very, very impressed.

based on what's written in the Guide, ie

As far as possible, the BCE seeks to create constituencies:
•
from wards that are adjacent to each other; and
•
that do not contain ‘detached parts’, i.e. where the only physical connection
between one part of the constituency and the remainder would require travel
through a different constituency.

and

However, the BCE recognises
that in a few cases there may be exceptional and compelling circumstances
– having regard to the specific factors identified in Rule 5 – that may make
it appropriate to divide a ward. Strong evidence and justification will need
to be provided in any constituency scheme that proposes to split a ward,
and the number of such ward splits should be kept to an absolute minimum

it would be very, very surprising if this version of Hallam comes to pass.

[islington]

Aug 28, 2016 9:26:36 GMT emidsanorak said:

The real problem with your Sheffield Hallam & Penistone is the fact that it has no internal communication between the Dore & Totley ward and the rest of the constituency. I think Sheffield needs at least one ward split but, if you really want it without one, why not try working up a scheme for South Yorkshire (12.74) and Derbyshire (10.12)?

I agree with the BCE approach of assigning seats by means of EU electoral regions so I don't want to cross a regional boundary.

The problem is the shortness of the common boundary between Dore and Fulwood; but you could argue that, since these two wards currently coexist quite happily in the same constituency (Sheffield Hallam), the problem is not so much the inclusion of these two wards as the exclusion of Ecclesall ward. But there it is - if we want an option that doesn't split wards (and respects the regional boundary), there doesn't seem to be any way round this arrangement; I remain grateful to YL and others for devising it and showing that a non-split Sheffield is possible.

And is it really that bad? I'm not claiming to be familiar with the area, but I should have thought that Dore, on the edge of Sheffield close to the moors, would have a reasonable amount of common interest with wards to the north of it such as Fulwood and Stannington. And if you drive up from Dore north up Sheephill Rd and Houndkirk Rd, then do a quick left-and-right into Fulwood Lane, you'll be back in the seat almost before you realize that you've left it. (I've just done this drive, courtesy of GoogleEarth, and very pleasant it was.)

So I'm not too worried about a lack of strict internal connectivity, which is actually (once you start looking for it) a much more common feature than you might think, both of proposals on this site and of actual constituencies (current and historical). What's much worse, to my mind, is that removing Ecclesall takes away the part of Hallam with which Dore has the best links, leaving it very isolated from the rest (which is a separate point from whether those links actually involve leaving the seat, e.g. if there were a railway or a good dual carriageway running from Dore village to the upper reaches of Fulwood ward, I'd be much less worried about connectivity even if this hypothetical link passed briefly outside the seat on its way).  

Even with its acknowledged drawbacks, the Sheffield Hallam & Penistone seat proposed by MoM and myself is still better than Mersey Banks or Leeds Met & Ossett and I'd actually be quite content if the BCE proposed something along these lines. But I expect that in practice they will agree with you and split at least one ward in Sheffield. We shall know in a couple of weeks.

PS - And just to add, having seen Minion's reply (which crossed with mine), the BCE criteria refer to 'travel' without specifying the means of travel; and it would certainly be possible (and probably quite enjoyable, in decent weather) to get from Dore to Fulwood on foot without leaving the seat.

[minionofmidas]

Aug 28, 2016 10:45:03 GMT islington said:

Aug 28, 2016 9:26:36 GMT emidsanorak said:

The real problem with your Sheffield Hallam & Penistone is the fact that it has no internal communication between the Dore & Totley ward and the rest of the constituency. I think Sheffield needs at least one ward split but, if you really want it without one, why not try working up a scheme for South Yorkshire (12.74) and Derbyshire (10.12)?

I agree with the BCE approach of assigning seats by means of EU electoral regions so I don't want to cross a regional boundary.

The problem is the shortness of the common boundary between Dore and Fulwood; but you could argue that, since these two wards currently coexist quite happily in the same constituency (Sheffield Hallam), the problem is not so much the inclusion of these two wards as the exclusion of Ecclesall ward. But there it is - if we want an option that doesn't split wards (and respects the regional boundary), there doesn't seem to be any way round this arrangement; I remain grateful to YL and others for devising it and showing that a non-split Sheffield is possible.

PS - And just to add, having seen Minion's reply (which crossed with mine), the BCE criteria refer to 'travel' without specifying the means of travel; and it would certainly be possible (and probably quite enjoyable, in decent weather) to get from Dore to Fulwood on foot without leaving the seat.

But strike "and others" - YL found it.

[islington]

Aug 28, 2016 10:43:55 GMT minionofmidas said:

I belive it's not possible to draw a whole wards map within the region without that insane Dore & Totley pseudo-connection. If anybody finds one, I will be very, very impressed.

There is a way.

But it's so horrible, I can't bring myself to post it.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Aug 28, 2016 20:52:48 GMT islington said:

Aug 28, 2016 10:43:55 GMT minionofmidas said:

I belive it's not possible to draw a whole wards map within the region without that insane Dore & Totley pseudo-connection. If anybody finds one, I will be very, very impressed.

There is a way.

But it's so horrible, I can't bring myself to post it.

Please post it
no matter how terrible

[erimus58]

In an attempt to split off the three Lincolnshire seats from South Yorkshire, I’ve devised a scheme that links North and East Yorkshire in a couple of areas. This is obviously not minimum change but thought it was worth a go.

The NY seats tend to be on the lower end of the size range but appear to be less sprawling than they are at present, which should reduce mileage claims. It also means the end of York Outer which some may regret!

Also I’m terrible with constituency names so where they are changed I’d expect that some are bad.

Grimsby Central & Cleethorpes – was Great Grimsby. Gains Sidney Sussex, Croft Baker & Haverstoe. Loses Fresney. (76350)

Grimsby North & Brigg – was Cleethorpes. Gains and losses as above but also gains Brigg & Wolds, Broughton and Appleby, Burton upon Stather and Winterton & Burringham and Gunness from Brigg & Goole. (78262)

Scunthorpe – gains the three Axholme wards from Brigg & Goole. (77845)

To be honest I don’t like the loop around Scunthorpe but without ward splitting, which I try to avoid, I can’t seem to find another solution.

Beverley & Holderness – no change. (76641)

Hull East – gains Bransholme East. (71845)

Hull North – gains the Cottingham wards & Willerby and Kirk Ella from H&H. Loss as above. (71883)

Hull West & Hessle – gains Tranby from H& H. (74283)

Goole & Howden – new constituency, thought that the name Eggborough & Drax wouldn’t fly. The remaining Brigg & Goole and H & H wards and additionally gains Camblesforth and Carlton, Derwent, Eggborough, Escrick & Whitley wards from Selby & Ainsty. (72889)

Bridlington & Filey – gains Tranby & Wolds from T&M and Cayton, Eastfield, Filey and Hertford from Scarborough. I think this is a much better looking than Yorkshire East. (72048)

Scarborough & Whitby – gains Great Ayton from Richmondshire and Thornton Dale from T&M. Loses as above. I believe the wards gained have a closer affinity to this new constituency than to the old. Name changed to reflect growth in the North. (71749)

Richmond (Yorks) – apart from the above loss, unchanged. (71819)

Skipton & Ripon – loses Lower Nidderdale to H&K. (71819)

Harrogate & Knaresborough – gain as above. Loses Borobridge and Claro to S&A. (71802)

Selby & Ainsty – gains as above, also gains Copmanthorpe & Rural West York from York Outer. Loses to G&H above. (72073)

York Inner – gains Dringhouses and Woodthorpe from York Outer. Loses Hull Road to Outer York & Pocklington. (73287)

York Outer & Pocklington – gains and losses as in York Inner, also gains Pocklington Provincial & Wolds Weighton from Yorkshire East. Additionally loses Haxby and Wigginton & Strensall to Thirske & Malton. (73265)

Thirske & Malton – everything that is left! (73680)

To be honest I would have preferred to have taken the Wetherby ward from West Yorkshire as it is a more natural fit into the Selby constituency as far as transport links and cultural links go and would have meant a lot less disruption to North Yorks. Unfortunately this spoils the many fine West Yorkshire plans proposed already.

[islington]

Aug 28, 2016 23:38:30 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

Aug 28, 2016 20:52:48 GMT islington said:

There is a way.

But it's so horrible, I can't bring myself to post it.

Please post it
no matter how terrible

All right, but not here because I shouldn't want anyone to mistake it for a serious suggestion.

Coming soon to a Pitchfork thread near you.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Aug 29, 2016 8:23:31 GMT islington said:

Aug 28, 2016 23:38:30 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

Please post it
no matter how terrible

All right, but not here because I shouldn't want anyone to mistake it for a serious suggestion.

Coming soon to a Pitchfork thread near you.

Thanks islington!

[East Anglian Lefty]

Aug 29, 2016 2:18:18 GMT erimus58 said:

In an attempt to split off the three Lincolnshire seats from South Yorkshire, I’ve devised a scheme that links North and East Yorkshire in a couple of areas. This is obviously not minimum change but thought it was worth a go.

The NY seats tend to be on the lower end of the size range but appear to be less sprawling than they are at present, which should reduce mileage claims. It also means the end of York Outer which some may regret!

Also I’m terrible with constituency names so where they are changed I’d expect that some are bad.

Grimsby Central & Cleethorpes – was Great Grimsby. Gains Sidney Sussex, Croft Baker & Haverstoe. Loses Fresney. (76350)

Grimsby North & Brigg – was Cleethorpes. Gains and losses as above but also gains Brigg & Wolds, Broughton and Appleby, Burton upon Stather and Winterton & Burringham and Gunness from Brigg & Goole. (78262)

Scunthorpe – gains the three Axholme wards from Brigg & Goole. (77845)

To be honest I don’t like the loop around Scunthorpe but without ward splitting, which I try to avoid, I can’t seem to find another solution.

Beverley & Holderness – no change. (76641)

Hull East – gains Bransholme East. (71845)

Hull North – gains the Cottingham wards & Willerby and Kirk Ella from H&H. Loss as above. (71883)

Hull West & Hessle – gains Tranby from H& H. (74283)

Goole & Howden – new constituency, thought that the name Eggborough & Drax wouldn’t fly. The remaining Brigg & Goole and H & H wards and additionally gains Camblesforth and Carlton, Derwent, Eggborough, Escrick & Whitley wards from Selby & Ainsty. (72889)

Bridlington & Filey – gains Tranby & Wolds from T&M and Cayton, Eastfield, Filey and Hertford from Scarborough. I think this is a much better looking than Yorkshire East. (72048)

Scarborough & Whitby – gains Great Ayton from Richmondshire and Thornton Dale from T&M. Loses as above. I believe the wards gained have a closer affinity to this new constituency than to the old. Name changed to reflect growth in the North. (71749)

Richmond (Yorks) – apart from the above loss, unchanged. (71819)

Skipton & Ripon – loses Lower Nidderdale to H&K. (71819)

Harrogate & Knaresborough – gain as above. Loses Borobridge and Claro to S&A. (71802)

Selby & Ainsty – gains as above, also gains Copmanthorpe & Rural West York from York Outer. Loses to G&H above. (72073)

York Inner – gains Dringhouses and Woodthorpe from York Outer. Loses Hull Road to Outer York & Pocklington. (73287)

York Outer & Pocklington – gains and losses as in York Inner, also gains Pocklington Provincial & Wolds Weighton from Yorkshire East. Additionally loses Haxby and Wigginton & Strensall to Thirske & Malton. (73265)

Thirske & Malton – everything that is left! (73680)

To be honest I would have preferred to have taken the Wetherby ward from West Yorkshire as it is a more natural fit into the Selby constituency as far as transport links and cultural links go and would have meant a lot less disruption to North Yorks. Unfortunately this spoils the many fine West Yorkshire plans proposed already.

An interesting attempt, though I think there may be an alternative version with less change. I'm still working through the North Yorkshire bits, but as far as North Lincs and East Yorkshire go, I've got a couple of points:

1. You don't need to mention Grimsby in two seat names - Freshney isn't that integral to the town.
2. Burringham and Gunness isn't a nice fit, but I think you're right that it's the only feasible solution. I don't think locals would hate it that much if it's the price of getting rid of any traces of Humberside.
3. I don't much like your solution for Hull. Splitting Bransholme is inelegant and Willerby fits better with Tranby than with Cottingham. Your numbers also don't match up to your descriptions - I think you also move Avenue from North to West. I think your basic problem is that you're trying to make all three Hull seats too small. Why not add South Hunsley to West as well? With a bit of shuffling, that gives you three seats nearer the average, and as an added bonus you can then put Pocklington into the Goole seat and have only one constituency crossing the N Yorks-E Yorks boundary.

[East Anglian Lefty]

A bit more checking suggests that my plans weren't entirely workable, because there aren't enough spare electors in North Yorkshire.

However, I have just stumbled across an approach giving six seats to East Yorkshire that isn't actually that bad:



Hull North (71,111) - loses Avenue, Bricknell and Newland, gains Holderness, Ings and Sutton
Hull Riverside (72,673) - successor to East; loses Holderness, Ings and Sutton, gains Brickell, Myton, Newland, St. Andrew's and South West Holderness
Hull West & Hessle (72,023) - loses Myton and St. Andrew's, gains Avenue, Tranby and Willerby & Kirk Ella
Haltemprice & Goole (71,276) - successor to Haltemprice & Howden, but doesn't actually contain much of Haltemprice any more; loses Tranby and Willerby & Kirk Ella, gains Goole North, Goole South and Snaith etc.
Beverley & Pocklington (71,338) - successor to Beverley & Holderness, although actually marginally more electors come from East Yorkshire. Loses to the Holderness wards, gains Driffield & Rural, Pocklington Provincial and Wolds Weighton
Bridlington & Holderness (71,117) - successor to East Yorkshire, loses Driffield & Rural, Pocklington Provincial and Wolds Weighton, gains Mid Holderness, North Holderness and South East Holderness.

It's not exactly minimum change in the south of Hull or the north of East Yorkshire and Avenue ward does stick out like a sore thumb, but none of the seats are an obvious abomination and it's arguable that the situation in the north is actually an improvement on the current arrangement, creating coherent coastal and inland seats (as opposed to Hull-facing and non-Hull-facing seats as at present.)

[erimus58]

EAL,

Thanks for the reply. In response:-

1) Grimsby & Cleethorpes and Brigg?

2) I agree but I think I tried every permutation and that was the only one that I could find that worked.

3) The reason I made the Hull seats so small was that ER had already lost the Lincolnshire Ward and I was trying to minimise the loss and make up for the fact that the Lincolnshire seats were oversized. That is why I excluded South Hunsley from the Hull grouping and also why the split of Bransholme occurs. However I will revisit to see if I can avoid the split of the two wards.

Richmond (Yorks) (72129). Apologies think I repeated the Skipton & Ripon number.

Also I know that all the North Yorkshire numbers were below average which is why I would have liked to use the Wetherby ward, however as the object of the exercise was to remove the one crossing of the borders down south it seemed inappropriate to cross the border there.

Once again thanks for your thoughts.