Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,870 
|
Post by Crimson King on Sept 10, 2018 13:15:00 GMT
i would have thought Philip Davies would be happy with getting Bingley Rural back, which may be of some slight significance
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 10, 2018 16:29:32 GMT
Sheffield unchanged from the, erm, pre-final draft? mdfs.net/maps/Sheffield/per2018/final.gifAll of Sheffield other than Stocksbridge in a single collection of Sheffield constituences, similar to as now. Pairing Stocksbridge with a Peniston-y constituency is an acceptable way of preventing any other Sheffield boundary crossing, as historically all such boundary crossing has been in the Barnsley/Penistone direction anyway. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 10, 2018 16:30:38 GMT
Scarborough & Whitby gains Thornton Dale instead of gaining Filey. Filey would have been better, but keeps as much of Scarborough Borough in one constituency.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Sept 10, 2018 17:17:39 GMT
Sheffield unchanged from the, erm, pre-final draft? mdfs.net/maps/Sheffield/per2018/final.gifAll of Sheffield other than Stocksbridge in a single collection of Sheffield constituences, similar to as now. Pairing Stocksbridge with a Peniston-y constituency is an acceptable way of preventing any other Sheffield boundary crossing, as historically all such boundary crossing has been in the Barnsley/Penistone direction anyway. Well, it could have been a lot worse. I'm obviously disappointed that they've stuck with compass point names (and the reasons given aren't very convincing IMO) and I don't really approve of the continued tendency to turn Hallam into a constituency following the western fringe of the urban area (which I don't think reflects the geography of the city very well: most areas on the western fringe are more naturally linked to areas closer in than areas further round on the fringe, and those "rural" areas to the west are mostly uninhabited) but compared with the 2013 proposals or the initial ones this time (or indeed what Birmingham has ended up with) it's not that bad. I don't like the Pudsey seat or the split of Grimsby. Both areas were awkward, admittedly. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 10, 2018 21:30:59 GMT
There was no reason to split Grimsby at all. They could have just put the three wards comprising Cleethorpes with it, given that Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes are essentially conjoined twins now geographically.
Ward-splitting should have been tried in Leeds as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 10, 2018 22:25:14 GMT
If you add Sidney Sussex, Croft Baker and Haverstoe to the current Grimsby seat it would be too large. Plus you would end up splitting Humberston down the middle and the "leftovers" seat would be rather incoherent.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 11, 2018 9:23:06 GMT
Just remove Scartho ward (really a village outside the town of Grimsby) to get it in quota. Move part of Axholme (an island in name only, and not a town) into a Doncaster or Goole-based seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2018 7:56:32 GMT
In the '2018 review' thread I've just criticized the BCE's final recommendations in the Halifax area, and it didn't take very much tinkering on Boundary Assistant to come up with the following.
To divide Calderdale into two seats without a clumsy ward split, BCE has added one Bradford ward. This isn't an unreasonable approach, but choosing Queensbury (11681) means very little wiggle room if both seats are to stay within the upper limit - hence the convoluted arrangement proposed by BCE.
If, instead, you add Wyke ward (9874), you can then have: a Halifax seat consisting of the town itself, including Warley and Illingworth, plus Hipperholme, Northowram and Wyke (78151); the rest of Calderdale as Calder Valley (74587); Bradford South gains Queensbury and loses Tong, and maybe should be called Bradford South West (72387); and Bradford South East loses Wyke and gains Tong (72916).
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 13, 2018 9:06:48 GMT
Just remove Scartho ward (really a village outside the town of Grimsby) to get it in quota. Move part of Axholme (an island in name only, and not a town) into a Doncaster or Goole-based seat. But then you have to split wards in East Yorkshire or have a serious knock-on effect in South Yorkshire. It's all interlinked, and the Boundary Commission's proposals in Grimsby, while not best for that area, do facilitate results elsewhere. I came up with the same boundaries here, for the same reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2018 9:34:47 GMT
No, I'm with GRH on this one.
Grimsby & Cleethorpes is fine without Scartho (75028); then Brigg, covering everything else east of the Ancholme, plus Burton upon Stather (71820) - admittedly this is a horribly sprawling seat, but something of this nature is unavoidable in this area and the BCE's equivalent is just as bad; Scunthorpe, consisting of the remaining wards east of the Trent plus Axholme S (73804). That leaves E Riding, Hull plus N and C Axholme with 441343 = 5.90, which is perfectly feasible for 6 seats with no split wards and no need to trespass into S Yorks.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Sept 13, 2018 11:24:12 GMT
In the '2018 review' thread I've just criticized the BCE's final recommendations in the Halifax area, and it didn't take very much tinkering on Boundary Assistant to come up with the following. To divide Calderdale into two seats without a clumsy ward split, BCE has added one Bradford ward. This isn't an unreasonable approach, but choosing Queensbury (11681) means very little wiggle room if both seats are to stay within the upper limit - hence the convoluted arrangement proposed by BCE. If, instead, you add Wyke ward (9874), you can then have: a Halifax seat consisting of the town itself, including Warley and Illingworth, plus Hipperholme, Northowram and Wyke (78151); the rest of Calderdale as Calder Valley (74587); Bradford South gains Queensbury and loses Tong, and maybe should be called Bradford South West (72387); and Bradford South East loses Wyke and gains Tong (72916). I'm not sure what you mean here, as Tong is already in the Commission's Bradford SE & Spen. Regardless of that, there seems to be a fairly general consensus that if you're going to put a single south Bradford ward in a Calderdale seat Queensbury is the least bad option. This is because it has the least identification with Bradford, at least in the town of Queensbury itself (I'm not so sure about the east of the ward), and furthermore there's a reasonable connection to Calderdale; indeed Queensbury and Shelf used to share an Urban District. OTOH it was pretty clear in the consultation that people in Wyke ward wanted to be in a Bradford seat, and with the Commission's proposals they sort of are; the AC also thought Wyke and Tong (the two Bradford wards in Bradford SE & Spen) went together well. I'm not sure that I think the final proposals around Halifax are as bad as you do. They're not perfect, and originated as a fairly blatant incumbent protection gerrymander, but they at least keep the core of Halifax in one piece, unlike the initial proposals which split it. It isn't as if the current Calder Valley is a very satisfactory constituency anyway, so I wouldn't be that desperate to try to preserve it. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2018 12:07:36 GMT
In the '2018 review' thread I've just criticized the BCE's final recommendations in the Halifax area, and it didn't take very much tinkering on Boundary Assistant to come up with the following. To divide Calderdale into two seats without a clumsy ward split, BCE has added one Bradford ward. This isn't an unreasonable approach, but choosing Queensbury (11681) means very little wiggle room if both seats are to stay within the upper limit - hence the convoluted arrangement proposed by BCE. If, instead, you add Wyke ward (9874), you can then have: a Halifax seat consisting of the town itself, including Warley and Illingworth, plus Hipperholme, Northowram and Wyke (78151); the rest of Calderdale as Calder Valley (74587); Bradford South gains Queensbury and loses Tong, and maybe should be called Bradford South West (72387); and Bradford South East loses Wyke and gains Tong (72916). I'm not sure what you mean here, as Tong is already in the Commission's Bradford SE & Spen. Regardless of that, there seems to be a fairly general consensus that if you're going to put a single south Bradford ward in a Calderdale seat Queensbury is the least bad option. This is because it has the least identification with Bradford, at least in the town of Queensbury itself (I'm not so sure about the east of the ward), and furthermore there's a reasonable connection to Calderdale; indeed Queensbury and Shelf used to share an Urban District. OTOH it was pretty clear in the consultation that people in Wyke ward wanted to be in a Bradford seat, and with the Commission's proposals they sort of are; the AC also thought Wyke and Tong (the two Bradford wards in Bradford SE & Spen) went together well. I'm not sure that I think the final proposals around Halifax are as bad as you do. They're not perfect, and originated as a fairly blatant incumbent protection gerrymander, but they at least keep the core of Halifax in one piece, unlike the initial proposals which split it. It isn't as if the current Calder Valley is a very satisfactory constituency anyway, so I wouldn't be that desperate to try to preserve it. Sorry, YL, I meant Bowling & Barkerend, not Tong. Yes, I agree that in seeking a ward to reinforce Calderdale, all else being equal Queensbury would be better than Wyke. My point was that all else is not equal: Queensbury brings with it nearly two thousand more electors than Wyke, meaning that, added to the whole of Calderdale, you now have 154545 electors to divide between two seats and there are only limited ways of keeping them both below the upper limit. If you take Wyke instead, you can make more compact seats in Calderdale but obviously it's a matter of judgment whether this is sufficient advantage to offset the drawback of using a less suitable Bradford ward. I feel it probably is, but I'm the first to admit that I'm not desperately familiar with this part of the world and I wouldn't go to the stake over it. And you're absolutely right to say that the final BCE plan is a huge improvement on the initial proposals in this area. This discussion, coupled with the fact that the worst anyone has been able to point to elsewhere seems to be the Clitheroe-Colne seat (which I'd describe as ugly and unfortunate but not unworkable), tends to strengthen my impression that, overall, the BCE final proposals are actually not all that bad as these things go. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Sept 14, 2018 17:38:18 GMT
This discussion, coupled with the fact that the worst anyone has been able to point to elsewhere seems to be the Clitheroe-Colne seat (which I'd describe as ugly and unfortunate but not unworkable), tends to strengthen my impression that, overall, the BCE final proposals are actually not all that bad as these things go. I think there are relatively few real horrors (at least compared with the initial proposals or the 2013 final proposals) but there is quite a lot which is not very good, sometimes in a more subtle way. Take Barnsley borough, for example. Putting most of the borough into Barnsley West & Stocksbridge, Barnsley East & Hemsworth and Wentworth & Hoyland constituencies is basically fine, but look at those two wards which aren't in any of those seats. One, Penistone West, is in a completely unnecessary cross-county constituency as a relic of the initial proposals (where it was necessary because Penistone East was in the monstrous Sheffield Hallam & Stocksbridge); it's fair enough to point out that the actual Penistone urban area hasn't been split, but the Penistone wards are a natural pair in a way which makes splitting them less than ideal. The other one is worse: the two Dearne wards cover, between them, three towns, Bolton on Dearne, Goldthorpe and Thurnscoe, and the border between them splits Goldthorpe neatly in two. This border is now proposed to be a constituency boundary, with Dearne South an orphan ward in a Doncaster seat. I assume that this needless split of a not very big town isn't because the BCE is stuffed full of Thatcherites who are bent on getting revenge for Goldthorpe's moment of fame five years ago. And then there's Bradford and Grimsby and Halifax. Even the Sheffield proposals are not as good as they ought to be with the freedom given by splitting three wards. (Beauchief & Greenhill shouldn't be in Hallam.) And I don't think this region is the worst. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 14, 2018 19:32:50 GMT
No, I'm with GRH on this one. Grimsby & Cleethorpes is fine without Scartho (75028); then Brigg, covering everything else east of the Ancholme, plus Burton upon Stather (71820) - admittedly this is a horribly sprawling seat, but something of this nature is unavoidable in this area and the BCE's equivalent is just as bad; Scunthorpe, consisting of the remaining wards east of the Trent plus Axholme S (73804). That leaves E Riding, Hull plus N and C Axholme with 441343 = 5.90, which is perfectly feasible for 6 seats with no split wards and no need to trespass into S Yorks. Indeed so. The alternative constituencies would be: Brigg (71,820), Scunthorpe (71,057), Goole & Howden (72,377), Hull North West (71,883), Hull South West (74,283), with Beverley & Holderness and East Yorkshire remaining intact and the current Hull East just adding Bransholme East ward. It is awkward unfortunately, especially due to the size of the rural wards of East Yorkshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 14, 2018 21:59:33 GMT
And then there's Bradford and Grimsby and Halifax. Even the Sheffield proposals are not as good as they ought to be with the freedom given by splitting three wards. (Beauchief & Greenhill shouldn't be in Hallam.) And I don't think this region is the worst. Speaking as someone who grew up in Ecclesall I don't see what is particularly wrong with putting Beauchief and Greenhill in with Dore and Totley and Ecclesall, although I will grant that Jordanthorpe and Batemoor don't have much to do with Beauchief, so you could have split that ward as well... Stannington is much more of the odd man out in both the new and current versions of Hallam. People there support Wednesday! It is like being in Parson Cross or something! (well, ok, not that similar!)
They are certainly better related than Pudsey and Guiseley in the present Pudsey constituency where I lived for 30 years...
Once you have the premise of creating unnecessarily large constituencies this is what you get, more than ever..
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Sept 15, 2018 9:02:48 GMT
And then there's Bradford and Grimsby and Halifax. Even the Sheffield proposals are not as good as they ought to be with the freedom given by splitting three wards. (Beauchief & Greenhill shouldn't be in Hallam.) And I don't think this region is the worst. Speaking as someone who grew up in Ecclesall I don't see what is particularly wrong with putting Beauchief and Greenhill in with Dore and Totley and Ecclesall, although I will grant that Jordanthorpe and Batemoor don't have much to do with Beauchief, so you could have split that ward as well... Stannington is much more of the odd man out in both the new and current versions of Hallam. People there support Wednesday! It is like being in Parson Cross or something! (well, ok, not that similar!)
They are certainly better related than Pudsey and Guiseley in the present Pudsey constituency where I lived for 30 years...
Once you have the premise of creating unnecessarily large constituencies this is what you get, more than ever..
I would say that when you look at the whole ward of Beauchief & Greenhill it forms a natural pair with Graves Park and that if using wards as building blocks they should be in the same constituency, as they are now. But I wouldn't have anything against a constituency based on those two, D & T, Ecclesall and say Nether Edge, if it fitted well into a plan for the rest of the city. I agree with you on Stannington -- BCE mistakes aren't a new thing with the 5% rule -- but it's harder to argue against a "no change" proposal. Drawing seats based on football allegiances is an interesting idea. However, my experience growing up in Ecclesall was that there were fairly similar levels of support for both Wednesday and United... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 9:05:55 GMT
And then there's Bradford and Grimsby and Halifax. Even the Sheffield proposals are not as good as they ought to be with the freedom given by splitting three wards. (Beauchief & Greenhill shouldn't be in Hallam.) And I don't think this region is the worst. Speaking as someone who grew up in Ecclesall I don't see what is particularly wrong with putting Beauchief and Greenhill in with Dore and Totley and Ecclesall, although I will grant that Jordanthorpe and Batemoor don't have much to do with Beauchief, so you could have split that ward as well... Stannington is much more of the odd man out in both the new and current versions of Hallam. People there support Wednesday! It is like being in Parson Cross or something! (well, ok, not that similar!)
They are certainly better related than Pudsey and Guiseley in the present Pudsey constituency where I lived for 30 years...
Once you have the premise of creating unnecessarily large constituencies this is what you get, more than ever..
tbf that is true allmy neigbours on the cross are Wednesday supporters |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 15, 2018 11:57:42 GMT
Speaking as someone who grew up in Ecclesall I don't see what is particularly wrong with putting Beauchief and Greenhill in with Dore and Totley and Ecclesall, although I will grant that Jordanthorpe and Batemoor don't have much to do with Beauchief, so you could have split that ward as well... Stannington is much more of the odd man out in both the new and current versions of Hallam. People there support Wednesday! It is like being in Parson Cross or something! (well, ok, not that similar!)
They are certainly better related than Pudsey and Guiseley in the present Pudsey constituency where I lived for 30 years...
Once you have the premise of creating unnecessarily large constituencies this is what you get, more than ever..
tbf that is true allmy neigbours on the cross are Wednesday supporters Well, I expect most of them are (even if they don't go). I did used to sit next to a guy from the Cross at Bramall Lane, but he always acted like a refugee... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 15, 2018 12:13:57 GMT
Speaking as someone who grew up in Ecclesall I don't see what is particularly wrong with putting Beauchief and Greenhill in with Dore and Totley and Ecclesall, although I will grant that Jordanthorpe and Batemoor don't have much to do with Beauchief, so you could have split that ward as well... Stannington is much more of the odd man out in both the new and current versions of Hallam. People there support Wednesday! It is like being in Parson Cross or something! (well, ok, not that similar!)
They are certainly better related than Pudsey and Guiseley in the present Pudsey constituency where I lived for 30 years...
Once you have the premise of creating unnecessarily large constituencies this is what you get, more than ever..
I would say that when you look at the whole ward of Beauchief & Greenhill it forms a natural pair with Graves Park and that if using wards as building blocks they should be in the same constituency, as they are now. But I wouldn't have anything against a constituency based on those two, D & T, Ecclesall and say Nether Edge, if it fitted well into a plan for the rest of the city. I agree with you on Stannington -- BCE mistakes aren't a new thing with the 5% rule -- but it's harder to argue against a "no change" proposal. Drawing seats based on football allegiances is an interesting idea. However, my experience growing up in Ecclesall was that there were fairly similar levels of support for both Wednesday and United... [b Well, I agree regarding Graves Park, but wherever you draw a constituency boundary you are almost inevitably going to divide some connected communities. The reality is that most people don't even know what constituency they live in, and don't care either, so all these arguments are a bit irrelevant. The only people interested in driving from one part of a constituency to another because it is a constituency are Party activists... Constituencies are not administrative boundaries like local authority boundaries.. Yes, I agree there are Wednesday fans in Ecclesall, which is a bit of a "prawn sandwich" area of football support where some people might even claim to support both teams (and Man Utd of course). Handsworth and Parson Cross are more hard core. On good days my father used to hear the crowd at Bramall Lane from our garden on Ringinglow road though, and I used to walk home from the match because it was quicker than the bus..Happy Days! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 12:34:27 GMT
tbf that is true allmy neigbours on the cross are Wednesday supporters Well, I expect most of them are (even if they don't go). I did used to sit next to a guy from the Cross at Bramall Lane, but he always acted like a refugee... we take two service users to bramall lane but not when there's a derby on. Last time they went which was about 5 years ago bare in mind there was trouble |
|
