iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,455 
|
Post by iain on Oct 19, 2016 23:22:25 GMT
Another no-split West Yorkshire (minus Wakefield, which I would combine with Doncaster):
Leeds - as per initial proposals, except:
Leeds Central - swap Farnley & Wortley with Ardsley & Robin Hood
Pudsey - swap Calverly & Farsley with Farnley & Wortley
Bradford:
Keighley, Shipley - as initial proposals
Bradford East - current constituency with Little Horton swapped with Calverly & Farsley
Bradford West - current constituency plus Queensbury
Bradford South & Brighouse - five remaining Bradford wards plus the three Brighouse wards
Calderdale & Kirklees
Halifax - current constituency plus Greetland & Stainland
Valleys of Calder & Colne - four western Calderdale wards and three western Kirklees wards
Huddersfield West - five north western Huddersfield wards plus Elland
Huddersfield East - three south eastern Huddersfield wards plus Mirfield, Denby Dale, Kirkburton
Batley & Dewsbury - the two towns plus Heckmondwicke
Morley & Spen - three Spen Valley and two Morley wards
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Oct 20, 2016 6:36:40 GMT
I think the Barnsley comment makes a good point about how the no ward splits approach has a particularly negative effect on areas which neighbour the authorities with big wards.
I think it's good if the Commission can see a number of options, so I've submitted a variant on the single split plan, which I think fixes many of the problems but not all of them, to them. This doesn't mean I'm endorsing that approach over splitting more wards. It'd be good if the Commission can see a range of options.
I wonder whether some of the complaints about the "Rother Valley" seat wouldn't have been made if Mosborough had been mentioned in its name. It isn't really a Rotherham seat; more than a third of its electorate would be in Sheffield, and I think quite a bit of the Rotherham component really looks to Sheffield.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Oct 27, 2016 20:38:08 GMT
I wonder whether some of the complaints about the "Rother Valley" seat wouldn't have been made if Mosborough had been mentioned in its name. It isn't really a Rotherham seat; more than a third of its electorate would be in Sheffield, and I think quite a bit of the Rotherham component really looks to Sheffield. "'We want to stay in Sheffield' - Thousands sign petition against Rotherham boundary move" www.thestar.co.uk/news/we-want-to-stay-in-sheffield-thousands-sign-petition-against-rotherham-boundary-move-1-8193614I wonder how many people in Mosborough signed petitions 50 years ago against the 1967 boundary changes which moved them from Derbyshire and into Sheffield? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 27, 2016 21:07:33 GMT
I wonder whether some of the complaints about the "Rother Valley" seat wouldn't have been made if Mosborough had been mentioned in its name. It isn't really a Rotherham seat; more than a third of its electorate would be in Sheffield, and I think quite a bit of the Rotherham component really looks to Sheffield. "'We want to stay in Sheffield' - Thousands sign petition against Rotherham boundary move" www.thestar.co.uk/news/we-want-to-stay-in-sheffield-thousands-sign-petition-against-rotherham-boundary-move-1-8193614I wonder how many people in Mosborough signed petitions 50 years ago against the 1967 boundary changes which moved them from Derbyshire and into Sheffield? Quite a lot, and it's still raised as a sore point. I have a reference to the extension act somewhere which has information about the objections. The more pertinant point, which is missed by the media but made well at the hearings, is that Birley/Beighton/Woodhouse/Mosborough came into the city together as a unit and have been together as a unit ever since, and even if they're treated as a satellite to the city, they are a community entity and should not be split asunder with Beighton & Mosborough being lumped in with Wales. Looked at it that way there's no contradiction. Staying in a Sheffield constituency keeps them together even if the Sheffield Head Office treats them as a troublesome irritant who should just provide their resources to the city and shut up and be grateful. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Oct 27, 2016 21:45:36 GMT
I wonder whether some of the complaints about the "Rother Valley" seat wouldn't have been made if Mosborough had been mentioned in its name. It isn't really a Rotherham seat; more than a third of its electorate would be in Sheffield, and I think quite a bit of the Rotherham component really looks to Sheffield. "'We want to stay in Sheffield' - Thousands sign petition against Rotherham boundary move" www.thestar.co.uk/news/we-want-to-stay-in-sheffield-thousands-sign-petition-against-rotherham-boundary-move-1-8193614I wonder how many people in Mosborough signed petitions 50 years ago against the 1967 boundary changes which moved them from Derbyshire and into Sheffield? Comment under that article from "mosbroman": |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Oct 28, 2016 12:35:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Oct 28, 2016 14:53:30 GMT
Quite a lot, and it's still raised as a sore point. I have a reference to the extension act somewhere which has information about the objections. The more pertinant point, which is missed by the media but made well at the hearings, is that Birley/Beighton/Woodhouse/Mosborough came into the city together as a unit and have been together as a unit ever since, and even if they're treated as a satellite to the city, they are a community entity and should not be split asunder with Beighton & Mosborough being lumped in with Wales. Looked at it that way there's no contradiction. Staying in a Sheffield constituency keeps them together even if the Sheffield Head Office treats them as a troublesome irritant who should just provide their resources to the city and shut up and be grateful. Very few local residents will have lived in the area pre-1967; quite apart from the time which has passed, most of the housing in the area is post-1967. The area is very much part of Sheffield now, although there are of course local centres which give it some coherence and makes it sensible to treat Beighton/Mosborough/Birley together, if possible. Woodhouse has links with the area, but is a little detached and, incidentally, was never in Derbyshire. The point made elsewhere about the area having strong links with Eckington and Ridgeway (and Killamarsh, not mentioned) are spot on, but this is rather more the fault of the boundaries not bringing these areas into Sheffield. Although there are some links with Chesterfield, my impression is that they have weakened over time and, besides, none of these areas are in the same district or constituency as that town. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 28, 2016 16:39:11 GMT
The more pertinant point, which is missed by the media but made well at the hearings, is that Birley/Beighton/Woodhouse/Mosborough came into the city together as a unit and have been together as a unit ever since, and even if they're treated as a satellite to the city, they are a community entity and should not be split asunder with Beighton & Mosborough being lumped in with Wales. Very few local residents will have lived in the area pre-1967; quite apart from the time which has passed, most of the housing in the area is post-1967. The area is very much part of Sheffield now, although there are of course local centres which give it some coherence and makes it sensible to treat Beighton/Mosborough/Birley together, if possible. Woodhouse has links with the area, but is a little detached and, incidentally, was never in Derbyshire. Checking my notes you're right. I was misled by my notes from the BCE hearing: "Mosborough and Beighton came into the city in 1967 along with Birley and Woodhouse". Of course, the historic Yorkshire/Derbyshire boundary is the Shire Brook (county brook) south of Woodhouse and west of Frecheville, so only Mosborough, Beighton and Birley came in from Derbyshire in the south-east in 1967. The Motion To Annul The Sheffield Boundary Order mentioned a lot the housing that Sheffield had been building in the area prior to the annexation. ( Commons, Lords) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Oct 29, 2016 7:22:01 GMT
The people wielding the pitchforks now will mostly be the people who moved into the new houses the people wielding the pitchforks in 1967 were complaining about.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Oct 29, 2016 8:16:32 GMT
Some thoughts about options for a 5 seat Sheffield and how the ward splits work with the polling district data. I'm going to assume only two wards are split, given what the Commission say about keeping splits to a mimimum. That means there needs to be a constituency made up of six whole wards. There are various ways to do this, but perhaps the most obvious one is to add Manor Castle to the existing Heeley. Option 1: Sheffield Heeley 78,366 existing plus Manor Castle Sheffield Attercliffe: existing South East plus Brightside/Wincobank part of Shiregreen & Brightside Sheffield Burngreave & Ecclesfield: rest of Shiregreen & Brightside, plus Burngreave, Firth Park, Southey, the Ecclesfields Sheffield Ecclesall: Dore, Ecclesall, Fulwood, Nether Edge, Central, most of Broomhill Sheffield Hillsborough: Hillsborough, Walkley, Stannington, Stocksbridge, Crookes, part of Broomhill Brightside/Wincobank here means polling districts VD, VE, VF and VG, which have an electorate of 6,178, giving Attercliffe 73,165 and B&E 76,040. The Broomhill split seems to work best with just ED and EE (Crookesmoor/Commonside/Birkendale, electorate 3,956) going north, which is just about enough: Ecclesall 78,285, Hillsborough 75,574. Option 2: Sheffield Heeley as option 1 Sheffield Attercliffe as option 1 Sheffield Burngreave & Ecclesfield as option 1 Sheffield Hallam: existing, plus Stocksbridge & Upper Don but without part of Crookes Sheffield Five Rivers: existing Central without Manor Castle plus Hillsborough and part of Crookes (this rather doktorbian name was suggested in the last review by someone and I like it better than pretending that Hillsborough is part of central Sheffield) (I don't like this much, but it's a fairly obvious mimimal change option so am including it.) The obvious parts of Crookes to keep in Hallam are the Crosspool/Sandygate PDs HB, HE and HF. The numbers don't quite work this way, so HC needs to remain in Hallam as well; there's precedent for this but it produces an ugly split of Crookes proper, which makes me like this option even less. HB, HC, HE and HF in Hallam gives Hallam 77,697, Five Rivers 76,161. Option 3: Sheffield Heeley as option 1 Sheffield Attercliffe as option 1 Sheffield Burngreave & Ecclesfield as option 1 Sheffield Ecclesall: as option 1 but without Fulwood, plus all of Broomhill and part of Walkley Sheffield Hallam & Hillsborough: Fulwood, Crookes, Hillsborough, Stannington, Stocksbridge, part of Walkley This is similar to Adrian 's proposal but without the extra split of Fulwood, and it's similar to ideas proposed in the zombie review. However, it should probably be rejected: the obvious way to split Walkley is to send the Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe area (ZF, ZG, ZI) south, and that leaves too much electorate in H&H, so you'd have to split Walkley proper. (The extra split of Fulwood makes it work better.) Option 4: Sheffield Heeley as option 1 Sheffield Attercliffe: as option 1 but with part of Burngreave instead of Brightside/Wincobank Sheffield Brightside: as option 1's B&E but with Brightside/Wincobank instead of part of Burngreave Sheffield Ecclesall as option 1 Sheffield Hillsborough as option 1 If you keep the three Shirecliffe PDs FB, FH and FJ (electorate 3,364) in Brightside and move the rest of Burngreave ward (Fir Vale, Burngreave proper) to Attercliffe you get Attercliffe 77,240, Brightside 71,965. (This could of course be combined with option 2 or option 3 in the west.) There are also options with a six ward seat in the south-east. Here's one I suggested before: Option 5: Sheffield South East 77,792: existing minus Darnall, plus Richmond and Manor Castle. Sheffield Heeley: loses Richmond, gains Central and most of Nether Edge Sheffield Hallam: loses Stannington, gains Broomhill and part of Nether Edge Sheffield Hillsborough: similar to pre-2010: Walkley, Hillsborough, Stannington, Stocksbridge, West Ecclesfield, part of East Ecclesfield Sheffield Brightside: Southey, Firth Park, Shiregreen & Brightside, Burngreave, Darnall, part of East Ecclesfield. The Nether Edge split is easy: just put TA (Carter Knowle, electorate 3,015) in Hallam and the rest in Heeley, giving Hallam 72,630, Heeley 77,373. The East Ecclesfield split is less satisfactory, because the unparished bit isn't big enough, so you end up also putting Ecclesfield village in Brightside, moving KC, KD, KE and KH to give Hillsborough 78,124, Brightside 75,511. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 29, 2016 8:56:26 GMT
The people wielding the pitchforks now will mostly be the people who moved into the new houses the people wielding the pitchforks in 1967 were complaining about. The pitchfork is handed down through the generations, until it appears on the Political Antiques roadshow. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Oct 31, 2016 22:11:18 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Nov 1, 2016 7:58:55 GMT
Can you work out what proposal he's describing? If you start with the existing Calder Valley, remove the three Upper Valley wards and add Queensbury and Skircoat, you're going to have to add Northowram & Shelf too. I thought this might be what was meant, but as well as looking weird it's 842 over quota. Even removing Ryburn as well and adding another Halifax town ward doesn't make the numbers work. If you move Town instead of Skircoat, that would work: Calder Valley would lose Calder, Luddendenfoot and Todmorden, and gain Town, Northowram & Shelf and Queensbury for 78,466. Halifax would lose Town and Northowram & Shelf and gain the three Upper Valley wards for 76,079. But if you're writing newspaper articles complaining about splitting Halifax does it make sense to propose hiving off the town centre from the rest of the town? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 1, 2016 8:17:18 GMT
Can you work out what proposal he's describing? If you start with the existing Calder Valley, remove the three Upper Valley wards and add Queensbury and Skircoat, you're going to have to add Northowram & Shelf too. I thought this might be what was meant, but as well as looking weird it's 842 over quota. Even removing Ryburn as well and adding another Halifax town ward doesn't make the numbers work. If you move Town instead of Skircoat, that would work: Calder Valley would lose Calder, Luddendenfoot and Todmorden, and gain Town, Northowram & Shelf and Queensbury for 78,466. Halifax would lose Town and Northowram & Shelf and gain the three Upper Valley wards for 76,079. But if you're writing newspaper articles complaining about splitting Halifax does it make sense to propose hiving off the town centre from the rest of the town? One option in this area - I'm sure it wasn't what Cllr Holden was suggesting, it was just an idea I had - would be for Halifax and Calder Valley, compared with the BCE proposal, to exchange Elland, Rastrick and Brighouse wards with Skircoat and Illingworth. Halifax then comes in just over the lower limit at 71168 and it's much more of a 'Halifax' seat than the BCE version. Calder Valley, in addition to the ward swaps with Halifax above, also loses Ryburn ward to come in at 74387. This means that it follows the river Calder all the way from its source to its confluence with the Colne; so despite its eccentric shape it's actually more of a 'Calder Valley' seat than a lot of creations bearing this name. An attraction of this arrangement is that it frees up Ryburn ward to go into Colne Valley, which in turn means that the latter seat has no need to extend south to include Penistone. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 1, 2016 13:18:55 GMT
Clie Betts MP ------------- Speaking on Mosborough & Beighton being in Rother Valley, and wider Sheffield implications. Can't see how any critera supports Mos&Bei being in Rother Valley. People look to the city they live in. Rother Valley is mostly Rotherham, Mos&Bei feel no attachment to Rother Valley. Sometims you do get cross-council seats where the community crosses the council, but this s not one of them. This splits communities. Example, Hackenthorpe is currently in the same constituency now, but will be split by the proposals because Hackenthorpe spreads over two wards. Also, due to the disparity between new and old ward boundaries, some people in Beighton ward will be in Rother Valley constituency and some will be in Sheffield South constituency due to the boundary being used running down the main road. Mos&Bei have strong ties with Birley and Woodhouse. Bosborough and Beighton came into the city in 1967 along with Birley and Woodhouse. Ever since the subsequent parliamentary review that took this into account in 1974 all four wards have been in the same constituency. The proposed Hallam is more than 22 miles long. The proposed Rother Valley is also 22 miles long. They are both unacceptable as each other. The commission disallows detached parts. Mos&Bei are functionally detached parts. The eastern boundary is Rother Valley Country Park with a large lake running the whole length, a significabnt geographical barrier. There is no community of interest between Mos&Bei and the rest of Rother Valley. Travelling between the two parts would involve significant travel through other seats. Locals, community groups and others have been collecting signitures objecting to the proposal which will be submitted to the commission. We do not belong in a non-Sheffield seat. Regarding Clive Betts's comments above -
Obviously he has a point about the lack of a direct road connexion between the Sheffield components and the rest of the proposed Rother Valley seat. But it can be overstated, because: (a) although this is clearly an undesirable feature, there are plenty of precedents for it; and (b) the A57 allows easy passage between the two sides of the seat involving only a brief transit outside the seat.
Nevertheless, Mr Betts's complaint prompted me to play with BA and I find that you can fix the problem, to the extent that it is a problem, without ward splits, by: leaving the existing Rother Valley unchanged (73511); putting Mosborough and Beighton in with Woodhouse, Darnall, Manor Castle plus Brinsworth from Rotherham (76165); and a 'Sheffield Brightside and Rotherham' seat consisting of (from Rotherham) Rotherham E & W, Boston Castle, Valley, Wickersley, and (from Sheffield) Shire Green and Firth Park (71410). (You could theoretically take Burngreave instead of Firth Park but it carries the seat too far into the centre of Sheffield.)
I'm not saying I think this is the best solution (I don't), but it solves Mr Betts's non-connectivity problem without creating any similar problem elsewhere, so I thought I'd mention it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Nov 1, 2016 16:23:24 GMT
Re Calderdale...Cllr Holden may have muddled Skircoat and Northowram. A possible Tory proposal - Queensbury, Northowram, Lightcliffe, Brighouse, Rastrick, Elland, Greetland, Ryburn and Sowerby Bridge. A plum seat for Craig Whittaker. The remainder - six Halifax wards and the three Upper Valley wards - would definitely lean to Labour.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Nov 1, 2016 18:20:38 GMT
Clie Betts MP ------------- Speaking on Mosborough & Beighton being in Rother Valley, and wider Sheffield implications. Can't see how any critera supports Mos&Bei being in Rother Valley. People look to the city they live in. Rother Valley is mostly Rotherham, Mos&Bei feel no attachment to Rother Valley. Sometims you do get cross-council seats where the community crosses the council, but this s not one of them. This splits communities. Example, Hackenthorpe is currently in the same constituency now, but will be split by the proposals because Hackenthorpe spreads over two wards. Also, due to the disparity between new and old ward boundaries, some people in Beighton ward will be in Rother Valley constituency and some will be in Sheffield South constituency due to the boundary being used running down the main road. Mos&Bei have strong ties with Birley and Woodhouse. Bosborough and Beighton came into the city in 1967 along with Birley and Woodhouse. Ever since the subsequent parliamentary review that took this into account in 1974 all four wards have been in the same constituency. The proposed Hallam is more than 22 miles long. The proposed Rother Valley is also 22 miles long. They are both unacceptable as each other. The commission disallows detached parts. Mos&Bei are functionally detached parts. The eastern boundary is Rother Valley Country Park with a large lake running the whole length, a significabnt geographical barrier. There is no community of interest between Mos&Bei and the rest of Rother Valley. Travelling between the two parts would involve significant travel through other seats. Locals, community groups and others have been collecting signitures objecting to the proposal which will be submitted to the commission. We do not belong in a non-Sheffield seat. Regarding Clive Betts's comments above -
Obviously he has a point about the lack of a direct road connexion between the Sheffield components and the rest of the proposed Rother Valley seat. But it can be overstated, because: (a) although this is clearly an undesirable feature, there are plenty of precedents for it; and (b) the A57 allows easy passage between the two sides of the seat involving only a brief transit outside the seat.
Nevertheless, Mr Betts's complaint prompted me to play with BA and I find that you can fix the problem, to the extent that it is a problem, without ward splits, by: leaving the existing Rother Valley unchanged (73511); putting Mosborough and Beighton in with Woodhouse, Darnall, Manor Castle plus Brinsworth from Rotherham (76165); and a 'Sheffield Brightside and Rotherham' seat consisting of (from Rotherham) Rotherham E & W, Boston Castle, Valley, Wickersley, and (from Sheffield) Shire Green and Firth Park (71410). (You could theoretically take Burngreave instead of Firth Park but it carries the seat too far into the centre of Sheffield.)
I'm not saying I think this is the best solution (I don't), but it solves Mr Betts's non-connectivity problem without creating any similar problem elsewhere, so I thought I'd mention it.
It's much easier to fix the connectivity problem than that. Just swap Rother Vale and Maltby, which has the merit of unsplitting both Maltby and Aston-cum-Aughton parishes, and there are road links from Beighton into Rother Vale. Yes, Maltby would be very much out on a limb in the Rotherham seat, but if you really insist on not splitting wards in this part of the world you're going to create far worse results than that. (I don't think it would put the Mosborough pitchforks back in their boxes, mind.) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Nov 1, 2016 18:24:52 GMT
Re Calderdale...Cllr Holden may have muddled Skircoat and Northowram. A possible Tory proposal - Queensbury, Northowram, Lightcliffe, Brighouse, Rastrick, Elland, Greetland, Ryburn and Sowerby Bridge. A plum seat for Craig Whittaker. The remainder - six Halifax wards and the three Upper Valley wards - would definitely lean to Labour. I believe in the States that's called an incumbent protection gerrymander. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,919
|
Post by YL on Nov 5, 2016 19:55:59 GMT
Five seat Sheffield option 6: the Green gerrymander. (No, as far as I'm aware they haven't proposed this...)
Sheffield South East (77,719): Arbourthorne, Beighton, Birley, Mosborough, Richmond, Woodhouse
Sheffield Central (78,032): Broomhill, Central, Crookes, Nether Edge, Walkley, part of Gleadless Valley (PDs OA, OB, OF, OG, i.e. Heeley and Meersbrook)
Sheffield Hallam & Norton (73,750): Beauchief & Greenhill, Dore & Totley, Ecclesall, Fulwood, Graves Park, rest of Gleadless Valley (i.e. Gleadless Valley proper)
Sheffield Hillsborough (74,601): East Ecclesfield, Hillsborough, Stannington, Stocksbridge & Upper Don, West Ecclesfield, part of Southey (PDs WB and WD, i.e. Birley Carr and Fox Hill)
Sheffield Brightside (77,328): Burngreave, Darnall, Firth Park, Manor Castle, Shiregreen & Brightside, rest of Southey (i.e. Southey Green and the part of Parson Cross in the ward)
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 6, 2016 8:46:21 GMT
Re Calderdale...Cllr Holden may have muddled Skircoat and Northowram. A possible Tory proposal - Queensbury, Northowram, Lightcliffe, Brighouse, Rastrick, Elland, Greetland, Ryburn and Sowerby Bridge. A plum seat for Craig Whittaker. The remainder - six Halifax wards and the three Upper Valley wards - would definitely lean to Labour. Hullenedge - You can keep Royds in the Brighouse seat rather than Queensbury if you want to avoid disrupting the BCE's OK-ish scheme for Bradford. It's not a bad plan. But it doesn't fit with my thinking for this area, which involves putting Penistone W ward into a Sheffield seat, meaning in turn that the Ryburn ward of Calderdale is needed to reinforce Colne Valley. (I admit it's not an especially good fit with the latter, but it's no worse (arguably better) than Penistone W.) Removing Ryburn leaves me to fit two seats into the remaining 16 wards of Calderdale, plus Royds = 145555 electors. This can be done, creating a Halifax seat (71168) that is a distinct improvement on the BCE version; and the resulting rather straggly Calder Valley seat (74387), although it doesn't look pretty on the map, does at least quite faithfully follow the river Calder itself. This is all part of my Yorks proposal submitted to BCE yesterday. |
|
