|
|
Post by islington on Mar 31, 2016 10:45:57 GMT
Hullenedge -
My pleasure.
What would you think of a further swap of Farnley and Middleton wards between Morley and Leeds SW? It's fine on the numbers (Leeds SW 77109; Morley 76992) and it ties Tong rather better into the Morley seat, but on the other hand Farnley seems a more natural fit than Middleton with a seat including Leeds city centre. I keep switching them back and forth and I can't decide which looks better.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Mar 31, 2016 11:19:36 GMT
There's not much in it. I'd prefer keeping Armley/Kirkstall/Wortley together and Middleton has been linked to Morley in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 31, 2016 12:51:19 GMT
A further issue is that we have to have regard to the borders not only of Sheffield but also of South Yorkshire as a whole, with an entitlement of 12.74. That's why South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire should be addressed as one 33-seat unit. A single SouthYorks/WestYorks crossing seat is a better solution that glueing bits of Rotherham-facing bits of Rotherham into Sheffield seats. Noting there's a desire for Crookes to be in a south-west seat, swapping Crookes and City and rotating Broomhill gives this:  I don't have access to the numbers, but I expect it also groups up more areas of, ahem, the same colour into one seat. This is using these elector numbers from the 2016 register. I agree that in an ideal world, you would give Sheffield five whole seats. But I am also a pragmatist; and the fact is, if you refuse to cross the Sheffield boundary you have at least two ward splits in the city, and you give yourself a major problem in the rest of S Yorks that you can rectify only by crossing a further boundary with W Yorks, even although we know that if we cross the Sheffield boundary we have workable solutions that assign 13 and 20 seats respectively to S and W Yorks without crossing the boundary between them (and with only the single unavoidable ward split in Sheffield). And on any showing, borough and city boundaries are going to have to be crossed extensively across metropolitan Yorkshire. So my question is: What's so special about Sheffield that means its boundaries, uniquely, must be regarded as impregnable, no matter how much trouble it causes elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 13, 2016 18:42:26 GMT
I had been working on the assumption that, with Rother Valley and Wentworth & Dearne being on target and the remainder of Barnsley exactly two seats worth, Rotherham would HAVE TO add a Sheffield ward.
But I am coming to the conclusion that that probably still requires two ward splits, and certainly makes worse seats in Sheffield (even outside the crossborough seat) than what I see in this thread. So, yeah. 5 seat Sheffield is my man. It's not as if Wentworth & Dearne was a super logical constituency at current.
Actually, strictly speaking (and with the old wards) 5 whole seat Sheffield works with just one split ward - Burngreave split three ways, that is - but it's probably a bad idea (not so much because it requires Crookes to look north but because such a split probably doesn't work out nicely at all).
Sorry, I think I saw a minus sign where none was or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 13, 2016 18:57:48 GMT
 No time to write it up proper, but the zombie map (surprisingly given the low population) still works in "Humberside" except in Hull where this is sorta minimum changey, while many alternatives don't, and this seems to be the one Hemsworth minus 1 map that doesn't split any town. The version mentioned above with NPC unchanged splits Ossett. (And as a beautiful lagniappe, "Normanton" returns as a constituency name!) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 14, 2016 12:55:00 GMT
I've just belatedly 'liked' Pete Whitehead's Humberside plan of 8 March. The only small amendment I'd make is to swap Haverstoe and Scartho wards. This gets all the main parts of the town of Cleethorpes into a seat with Grimsby; I think the loss of Scartho is acceptable given that it is relatively peripheral to Grimsby town. The seats can be called 'Grimsby and Cleethorpes' and 'Brigg'. (The town of Brigg is a relatively small place tucked right in the corner of its proposed seat, but as a name it has three major factors in its favour: (a) history; (b) brevity; (c) the total lack of any plausible alternative.)
Looking at minion's Yorks map, I'm not sure that his point about not dividing Ossett carries much weight because the great bulk of the town is in the Ossett ward, it's only a small southern area that is trimmed off to go in a ward largely based on Horbury. These things happen in urban areas; we shouldn't let them get in the way of sensible seat-drawing. And the advantage of treating Ossett separately from the rest of Wakefield is that, as per hullenedge's plan, it allows seven whole seats in the Wakefield/Kirklees combination thus offering a high degree of respect to borough boundaries and much less change (compared with other proposals) to the existing seat pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Apr 14, 2016 13:10:15 GMT
35% of Horbury ward is made up of Ossett residents. Horbury itself is too small to be a ward on its own and Ossett is not bid enough to warrant two wards.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 14, 2016 15:42:33 GMT
I've just belatedly 'liked' Pete Whitehead's Humberside plan of 8 March. The only small amendment I'd make is to swap Haverstoe and Scartho wards. This gets all the main parts of the town of Cleethorpes into a seat with Grimsby; I think the loss of Scartho is acceptable given that it is relatively peripheral to Grimsby town. The seats can be called 'Grimsby and Cleethorpes' and 'Brigg'. I agree with Pete's South Humberside and Minion's North Humberside. But that's where I got stuck, since it's not possible to do both. I think I might end up recommending a split ward to effect a small Grimsby & Cleethorpes seat, trimming off Great Coates or Scartho ward and part of Haverstoe, but the numbers are tight. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 14, 2016 16:13:14 GMT
Adrian:
As you wish, but if you take Pete's plan in S Humberside and swap Haverstoe and Scartho the numbers come out fine, viz
BRIGG: 71820
GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES: 75028
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 14, 2016 17:37:06 GMT
Looking at minion's Yorks map, I'm not sure that his point about not dividing Ossett carries much weight because the great bulk of the town is in the Ossett ward, it's only a small southern area that is trimmed off to go in a ward largely based on Horbury. These things happen in urban areas; we shouldn't let them get in the way of sensible seat-drawing. And the advantage of treating Ossett separately from the rest of Wakefield is that, as per hullenedge's plan, it allows seven whole seats in the Wakefield/Kirklees combination thus offering a high degree of respect to borough boundaries and much less change (compared with other proposals) to the existing seat pattern. Splitting a town the size of Ossett is pretty clearly a defect in a plan IMO. It may be difficult to avoid without doing something worse, but let's see what minionofmidas is suggesting in the rest of West Yorks. (Again, it may come down to how willing the BCE is to split wards to avoid crossing borough boundaries. Kirklees can in principle be treated on its own, but it's a bit tricky to see how to do it, especially without polling district data.) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 14, 2016 20:42:22 GMT
Looking at minion's Yorks map, I'm not sure that his point about not dividing Ossett carries much weight because the great bulk of the town is in the Ossett ward, it's only a small southern area that is trimmed off to go in a ward largely based on Horbury. These things happen in urban areas; we shouldn't let them get in the way of sensible seat-drawing. And the advantage of treating Ossett separately from the rest of Wakefield is that, as per hullenedge's plan, it allows seven whole seats in the Wakefield/Kirklees combination thus offering a high degree of respect to borough boundaries and much less change (compared with other proposals) to the existing seat pattern. Splitting a town the size of Ossett is pretty clearly a defect in a plan IMO. It may be difficult to avoid without doing something worse, but let's see what minionofmidas is suggesting in the rest of West Yorks. Nothing to be proud of, that's for sure. snag.gy/dPCJW.jpgHalifax & Random Bradford Suburbs? Most of Keighley & Rawdon? Other parts look better (though of course there's small bits of Bradford proper lopped off into both Pudsey and Brighouse & Spenborough, and I don't nearly know enough about Leeds proper to judge my own proposal in any way). So, yeah. Takes more work. Unlikely that anything satisfactory can be produced without a split ward or two, though. At one point I thought I had every seat except Colne Valley in tolerance and that quite a bit too small and was going to jestingly suggest to add Bacup to it - but then I noticed Shipley (which looked better then) was 72 too large. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 14, 2016 20:47:44 GMT
Oh yeah, forgot to mention: York doesn't need redrawing of course, I was just trying to see if I could come up with an alternative.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 14, 2016 21:25:33 GMT
At one point I thought I had every seat except Colne Valley in tolerance and that quite a bit too small and was going to jestingly suggest to add Bacup to it. Bacup people armed with pitchforks could be seriously scary. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 15, 2016 20:02:10 GMT
What I'd quite like to try in West Yorkshire is to reduce the number of crossings of the Leeds/Bradford boundary to one, and preferably to have it in the north, where the boundary seems much more arbitrary than further south; in particular I'm thinking of Wharfedale and Ilkley wards, which are cut off from the rest of Bradford by Ilkley Moor but well connected to Otley etc. I don't think there's going to be any way to do this without ward splitting in Leeds.
If we do put Ilkley and Wharfedale into a Leeds seat, the rest of Bradford is easiest to handle if it's Worth Valley which goes into a Calderdale seat. I'm not, TBH, terribly convinced this is a good idea, though there is at least a good road from Oxenhope over the moors to Hebden Bridge. The Wyke solution causes problems in the Bingley area which may need a split ward in Bradford or two as well; so does trying to get two seats wholly within Calderdale by splitting a ward there (and I don't know whether there's a viable way of doing that anyway).
Here's a possible scheme for Calderdale, Bradford and Leeds based on the above. It does, of course, rely on the ward split I'm suggesting being possible in a sensible way.
Valleys of Worth & Calder (76,869) Existing Calder Valley minus Hipperholme & Lightcliffe, plus Worth Valley
Halifax (76,475) gains Hipperholme & Lightcliffe
Keighley (72,593) The three Keighley wards, Craven and the two Bingley wards.
Bradford East & Shipley (77,243) compared with existing East, loses Little Horton and Bowling & Barkerend, gains Shipley, Baildon, Windhill & Wrose.
Bradford West (73,777) gains Queensbury.
Bradford South (71,901) loses Queensbury, gains Little Horton and Bowling & Barkerend.
Leeds North West & Ilkley (76,439) Existing Leeds NW, plus Wharfedale and Ilkley. I do think Headingley's now looking a bit out of place in this, but it's harder to get the numbers to work if you move it.
Pudsey (68,624+x) Existing plus part of Farnley & Wortley.
Leeds South & Morley (84,275-x) Middleton Park, Ardsley & Robin Hood, the two Morley wards, rest of Farnley & Wortley
Leeds West & Central (74,951) City & Hunslet, Beeston & Holbeck, Kirkstall, Armley, Bramley & Stanningley. Not sure about the name.
Leeds North East (78,304) gains Hyde Park & Woodhouse
Leeds East (76,213) gains Burmantofts & Richmond Hill
Elmet & Rothwell (77,287) unchanged
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 15, 2016 20:22:35 GMT
At one point I thought I had every seat except Colne Valley in tolerance and that quite a bit too small and was going to jestingly suggest to add Bacup to it. Bacup could be seriously scary. Fixed that for you. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 16, 2016 9:20:45 GMT
What I'd quite like to try in West Yorkshire is to reduce the number of crossings of the Leeds/Bradford boundary to one, and preferably to have it in the north, where the boundary seems much more arbitrary than further south; in particular I'm thinking of Wharfedale and Ilkley wards, which are cut off from the rest of Bradford by Ilkley Moor but well connected to Otley etc. I don't think there's going to be any way to do this without ward splitting in Leeds. If we do put Ilkley and Wharfedale into a Leeds seat, the rest of Bradford is easiest to handle if it's Worth Valley which goes into a Calderdale seat. I'm not, TBH, terribly convinced this is a good idea, though there is at least a good road from Oxenhope over the moors to Hebden Bridge. The alternative is splitting a Bradford ward as well. Not that that's terrible, but it'd probably fall in the area that's already going to be pissed at the abolution of the Shipley seat. Bad politics. Those random "put two bits of Bradford proper into two Leeds seats" proposals are really quite terrible; ward splits are definitely preferrable to that. And Leeds wards are so large, you can't do anything reasonable with them anyways. It's like Birmingham. (There are 33 wards for a population equal to 7 seats. There are no combinations of 4 wards within tolerance - not even noncontiguous ones, the four largest wards would still be too small. Most combinations of 5 wards are too large, though there is at least one combination of 5 contiguous wards that is too small thanks to the Second Abolution of University Seats that the change of registration practices has turned out to amount to.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 17:37:25 GMT
Losing "Leeds Metropolitan and Ossett" as a constituency have might e too much for me to handle rn
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 16, 2016 20:40:53 GMT
Sheffield ERO emailed me saying they'd send me the polling district parliamentary electorate, but they haven't got around to it yet, and I'm not inclinded to pester them until after the elections. However, I've done the count manually from the March register: ElectoratePDs2016.xls and I'm updating the maps: 2016 Ward Maps |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 16, 2016 20:53:17 GMT
Some alternative Yorkshire proposals of mine to avoid ward splitting outside Sheffield and disrupting North Yorkshire's constituencies (note: my three proposed Humberside constituencies of Lincolnshire can also be kept the same to avoid cross-county seats).
Part 1: East Yorkshire and South Yorkshire:
1. Bridlington. Same boundaries as East Yorkshire constituency with name changed to old one; it is only one constituency in the East Riding of Yorkshire and still resembles the old Bridlington constituency for the most part. Electorate: 77,061.
2. Beverley & Holderness. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 76,641.
3. Kingston-upon-Hull North. The Kingston-Upon-Hull wards of Bransholme East/West, Kings Park, Orchard Park & Greenwood, University, Sutton, Beverley, Holderness, and Ings. Electorate: 71,111.
4. Kingston-Upon-Hull South. The Kingston-Upon-Hull wards of Bricknell, Newland, Newington, Avenue, Myton, St Andrew's, Drypool, Marfleet, Southcoates East/West, and Longhill. Electorate: 77,377.
5. Kingston-Upon-Hull West & Haltemprice. The Kingston-Upon-Hull wards of Boothferry, Derringham, and Pickering, plus the East Yorkshire wards of Cottingham North/South, Willerby & Kirk Ella, Tranby, Hessle, and South Hunsley. Electorate: 77,506.
6. Goole. The East Yorkshire wards of Goole North/South, Howden, Howdenshire, Dale, and Snaith, Rawcliffe & Marshland, plus the Doncaster wards of Thorne & Moorends and Norton & Akern. The old Goole constituency contained part of what is now in the Don Valley constituency hence this specific expansion. Electorate: 72,915.
7. Doncaster. The Doncaster wards of Armthorpe, Edenthorpe & Kirk Samsall, Wheatley Hills & Intake, Town, Hexthorpe & Balby North, Balby South, Bessacarr, and Bentley. Electorate: 77,781.
8. Mexborough & Bolton-upon-Dearne. The Doncaster wards of Sprotbrough, Adwick le Street & Carcroft, Roman Ridge, Mexborough, Conisborough, and Edlington & Warmsworth, plus the Barnsley wards of Dearne North/South. Electorate: 74,394.
9. Don Valley & Maltby. The Doncaster wards of Hatfield, Finningley, Stainforth & Barnby Dun, Rossington & Bawtry, and Tickhill & Wadworth, plus the Rotherham wards of Maltby, Dinnington, and Anston & Woodsetts. Electorate: 78,446.
10. Rotherham. As the current Rotherham constituency plus Rawmarsh ward. Electorate: 71,279.
11. Rother Valley & Mossborough. The Rotherham wards of Wickersley, Hellaby, Sitwell, Rother Vale, Holderness, and Wales, plus the Sheffield wards of Mossborough and Beighton (part). Electorate: (82,262-x).
12. Wentworth. The Rotherham wards of Hoober, Wath, Swinton, and Silverwood, plus the Barnsley wards of Rockingham, Worsbrough, Hoyland Milton, Wombwell, and Darfield. Electorate: 78,042.
13. Barnsley. As the current Barnsley Central constituency plus Stairfoot and Dodworth wards. Electorate: 77,062.
14. Penistone & Stocksbridge. As the current Penistone & Stocksbridge constituency minus Dodworth ward but plus the Sheffield ward of Stannington. Electorate: 75,085. 15. Sheffield South West. The Sheffield wards of Ecclesall, Dore & Totley, Fulwood, Crookes, Beauchief & Greenhill, and part of Graves Park. Electorate: (69,492+x) 16. Sheffield Central. The Sheffield wards of Gleadless Valley, Nether Edge, Broomhill, Central, Walkley, and part of Graves Park. Electorate: (82,290-x) 17. Sheffield East. The Sheffield wards of Woodhouse, Richmond, Burley, Manor Castle, and Arburthorne, plus part of Beighton ward and part of Darnall ward. Electorate: (63,711+x+y). 18. Sheffield North. The Sheffield wards of Burngreave, Firth Park, Southey, Hillsborough, Shiregreen and Brightsid, and part of Darnall ward. Electorate: (82,460-y).
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 16, 2016 20:55:24 GMT
Those random "put two bits of Bradford proper into two Leeds seats" proposals are really quite terrible; ward splits are definitely preferrable to that. I see them as demonstrating what's wrong with the avoiding-split-wards-at-all-costs approach. As you say, in much of Leeds (especially the west of the city council area) there are no combinations of wards which get within the legal range. So to get legal seats covering those parts of Leeds without splitting any wards, you end up having to tack random wards from neighbouring authorities on to get electorates in range without really thinking very much about any other aspect of good seat design. As doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️'s post reminds us, we've been here before with the zombie review. The fall in the electorate of many central Leeds wards means that at least no-one is proposing anything as bad as that thing again. |
|
