|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 24, 2016 18:17:51 GMT
81 seats allocated in total (plus 2 for the Isle of Wight)
Entitlements by county -
Berkshire 7.86
Buckinghamshire 7.18
East Sussex 7.57
Hampshire 17.03
Kent 16.41
Oxfordshire 6.17
Surrey 10.92
West Sussex 8.01
All can stand alone apart from East Sussex, so we are likely to see East Sussex and Kent paired for 24 constituencies. I would expect the recommendations here to be very similar to those from 2013.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 24, 2016 21:35:18 GMT
81 seats allocated in total (plus 2 for the Isle of Wight) Entitlements by county - Berkshire 7.86 Buckinghamshire 7.18 East Sussex 7.57 Hampshire 17.03 Kent 16.41 Oxfordshire 6.17 Surrey 10.92 West Sussex 8.01 All can stand alone apart from East Sussex, so we are likely to see East Sussex and Kent paired for 24 constituencies. I would expect the recommendations here to be very similar to those from 2013. That would be a huge mistake and I'm sure my South East Lib Dem colleagues will be going for pairing East and West Sussex again. Hastings & Rye and this time Bexhill & Battle are within quota as are, plus Wealden is slightly oversized so would only need to shed one ward and these are the three seats that border Kent. Quite frankly the pairing of those two counties last time was awful whereas the very natural pairing of East and West Sussex was ignored. The too small seats in East Sussex are all in the west of the county and pushing into their West Sussex hinterland would make perfect sense to sort the numbers. The Weald seat was one of the most awful from the last review. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,318 
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Feb 24, 2016 21:38:36 GMT
81 seats allocated in total (plus 2 for the Isle of Wight) Entitlements by county - Berkshire 7.86 Buckinghamshire 7.18 East Sussex 7.57 Hampshire 17.03 Kent 16.41 Oxfordshire 6.17 Surrey 10.92 West Sussex 8.01 All can stand alone apart from East Sussex, so we are likely to see East Sussex and Kent paired for 24 constituencies. I would expect the recommendations here to be very similar to those from 2013. That would be a huge mistake and I'm sure my South East Lib Dem colleagues will be going for pairing East and West Sussex again. Hastings & Rye and this time Bexhill & Battle are within quota as are, plus Wealden is slightly oversized so would only need to shed one ward and these are the three seats that border Kent. Quite frankly the pairing of those two counties last time was awful whereas the very natural pairing of East and West Sussex was ignored. The too small seats in East Sussex are all in the west of the county and pushing into their West Sussex hinterland would make perfect sense to sort the numbers. The Weald seat was one of the most awful from the last review. The issue is than W + E Sussex is entitled to 15.6 seats and Kent to 16.4, so, they will try to make a Kent/Sussex seat. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 24, 2016 21:44:03 GMT
That would be a huge mistake and I'm sure my South East Lib Dem colleagues will be going for pairing East and West Sussex again. Hastings & Rye and this time Bexhill & Battle are within quota as are, plus Wealden is slightly oversized so would only need to shed one ward and these are the three seats that border Kent. Quite frankly the pairing of those two counties last time was awful whereas the very natural pairing of East and West Sussex was ignored. The too small seats in East Sussex are all in the west of the county and pushing into their West Sussex hinterland would make perfect sense to sort the numbers. The Weald seat was one of the most awful from the last review. The issue is than W + E Sussex is entitled to 15.6 seats and Kent to 16.4, so, they will try to make a Kent/Sussex seat. I'd pair Kent with Surrey. Actually, pair Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey but don't touch the Kent/East Sussex border as its the one that has the fewest shared interests over it (being as it is very rural with bad communication links). Kent/Surrey border has good links, Surrey/West Sussex and East Sussex/West Sussex too. But hey, that's too much lateral thinking for the boundary commission I fear! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2016 1:12:12 GMT
I argued for the same at the last review but didnt get too far with it. This time I think its evenb clearer that the numbers point to a paired Kent/East Sussex seat (as hideous as it is and this is why I oppose this whole system frankly because of the need to violate county boundaries)
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 25, 2016 3:20:57 GMT
I argued for the same at the last review but didnt get too far with it. This time I think its evenb clearer that the numbers point to a paired Kent/East Sussex seat (as hideous as it is and this is why I oppose this whole system frankly because of the need to violate county boundaries) The worst thing is that even if it didn't 'violate' a county boundary, The Weald was just awful full stop. To have a seat stretching east to west so far with absolutely no common interest at all and where you would naturally go outside the seat to get from one end to the other is just crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2016 3:28:28 GMT
No it was hideous and any alternative is going to be (Rye and Romney?). I'm so relieved that Hertfordshire has been spared this fate this time - you may or may not recall that the BC's attitude there was why have one cross-county seat when you can have three!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 25, 2016 3:41:12 GMT
There is a philosophical issue whether it is better to have one horrible seat and many sensible ones (viz Hertfordshire), or whether you have 3 or 4 mildly unsatisfactory ones. I don't think either us or the Boundary Commission have a fixed view on this.
The same applies to cross-county seats. I don't deify counties myself, particularly where they are no longer local government units. Is it better to cross boundaries in 3 places to generate seats that have some community sense, or just once with something awful. In this case the Boundary Commission is clear it is the latter. In London much better seats can be produced by using wards from 3 boroughs, but the BC congratulated itself last time on not having more than 2 boroughs for any seat.
A Kent- Sussex seat is inevitable, so if you don't like the Weald you'll have to try and organise something on the coast across Dungeness. Personally I don't think he Weald was too bad - not dissimilar to the present Arundel & South Downs - and it made the rest of East Sussex easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2016 4:15:07 GMT
In London much better seats can be produced by using wards from 3 boroughs, but the BC congratulated itself last time on not having more than 2 boroughs for any seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2016 4:17:23 GMT
Is it better to cross boundaries in 3 places to generate seats that have some community sense, or just once with something awful. In this case the Boundary Commission is clear it is the latter. I take your point in principle, but in the case I was discussing they came up with three seats which were awful and none of which had any community sense |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 7:58:19 GMT
Portsmouth North and South again?
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 26, 2016 9:18:48 GMT
Portsmouth North and South again? Yes, it works this time. Putting an extra ward in from Portamouth North to Portsmouth South will come within quota whether it's Nelson or Baffins so there'll be no need to change to an East/West configuration. Portsmouth North will have to go outside the city to make up the numbers as it did before 1997. The most striking change is that Southampton can be two whole seats including all the wards in the city for the first time for a very long time. As I'm involved in the official Lib Dem submission I won't be commenting too much on Hampshire proposals on this thread at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Feb 26, 2016 14:58:14 GMT
![]()  I have had a go at Hampshire ![]() New Forest W (75,752) - gains Bramshaw+Lyndhurst+Brockenhurst from New Forest E New Forest E and Romsey (77286) - loses Bramshaw+Lyndhurst+Brockenhurst to New Forest W and gains Abbey,Cupernham,Tadburn, Romsey Extra from Romsey Southampton, Test (73,663) - gains Bassett from Romsey Southampton, Itchen BC (74,516) - gains Swaythling from Romsey Eastleigh (77,814) - no change Fareham (75,724) - no change Gosport (72,357) - no change Portsmouth South (74,253) - gains Nelson Portsmouth North (75,213) - loses Nelson, gains Purbrook+Stakes from Havant Havant (77,739) - loses Purbrook+Stakes, gains the 3 Waterlooville wards from Meon Valley Meon Valley (71,976) - loses the 3 Waterlooville wards; gains Alresfords, Wonston, Itchen Valley from Winchester and East Meon and Petersfield (6 wards) from East Hants East Hampshire (71,363) - loses East Meon and Petersfield (6 wards); gains Oakley from NW Hants, Upton Grey and Odiham from NE Hants Aldershot (74,538) - gains the rest of the split Yateley E ward NE Hampshire (73,523) - loses the rest of the split Yateley E ward; loses Upton Grey and Odiham; gains Tadleyx3 + Kingsclere from NW Hants Basingstoke (78,026) - no change NW Hampshire (71,249) - loses Oakley; loses Tadleyx3 + Kingsclere; gains Harewood, Broughton, Over Wallop, Blackwater, Dun Valley, Kings Somborne from Romsey Winchester (77,145) - loses Alresfords, Wonston, Itchen Valley; gains Chilworth, North Baddesley, Ampfield, Valley Park from Romsey Overall I'm quite pleased except for the East Hants seat. I've tried shuffling it around but it is difficult to do so without splitting Winchester or Fleet or Bordon/Whitehill. I initially tried a Test Valley seat (minus Romsey) but ended up with the West Basingstoke Borough wards having to go with Alton! Just a note that I moved Kingsclere from NW to NE Hants after the photo was taken |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 26, 2016 15:12:50 GMT
In the west of the county, that's very similar to the 1983-97 arrangement - so suggest you revert to 'New Forest CC' and 'Romsey and Waterside CC'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 15:14:13 GMT
Greyshott ward?
That New Forest East is err. interesting. ..
Portsmouth South to gain Baffins. It's further South than the north of Nelson's with Portsmouth North to gain Portchester.
Lose Meon Valley totally.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Feb 26, 2016 15:25:27 GMT
I was just having a quick look at Southampton. Clearly you now have a clean 2 seats for the City, the only question is where to split. Personally I would move Bargate from Itchen to Test where it more naturally belongs, and then add both Swaythling and Bassett to Itchen.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on Feb 26, 2016 15:34:34 GMT
A go at some of Hampshire:
New Forest - 77,961 (+Bramshaw, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst)
Romsey & Waterside - 78,028 (-Bramshaw, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst, +Romsey Extra, Romseyx3, Chilworth)
Southampton Test - 72,705 (-Bevois, +Bassett, Swaythling)
Southampton Itchen - 75,474 (+Bevois)
Portsmouth South - 75,289 (+Baffins)
Portsmouth North - 73,736 (-Baffins, +Portchesterx2)
Gosport - 72,357 (unchanged)
Fareham - 75,528 (-Portchesterx2, +Burlesdon, Hamble, Netley Abbey)
Eastleigh - 72,002 (-Burlesdon, Hamble, Netley Abbey, +Chandlers Fordx2)
Winchester - 74,576 (-Chandlers Fordx2, +Ampfield, North Baddesley, Valley Park)
Andover - 72,491 (remainder of Test Valley +Burghlclere, East Woodhay, Overton, Whitchurch)
Havant - 77,639 (+Waterloo)
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 26, 2016 15:53:03 GMT
I don't see the objection to linking East Sussex to Kent as the figures make it a near perfect fit. Think of the railway termed 'Kent and East Sussex based on Tenterden. The postulated Rye&New Romney would make a satisfactory seat as Rye used to be as important a market as Ashford when I lived at Littlestone but that was long ago. I can see that being a better fit than with Hastings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 26, 2016 19:27:49 GMT
I don't see the objection to linking East Sussex to Kent as the figures make it a near perfect fit. Think of the railway termed 'Kent and East Sussex based on Tenterden. The postulated Rye&New Romney would make a satisfactory seat as Rye used to be as important a market as Ashford when I lived at Littlestone but that was long ago. I can see that being a better fit than with Hastings. Does that logic also apply to the Manchester and Milford Railway?  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 26, 2016 19:39:55 GMT
I don't see the objection to linking East Sussex to Kent as the figures make it a near perfect fit. Think of the railway termed 'Kent and East Sussex based on Tenterden. The postulated Rye&New Romney would make a satisfactory seat as Rye used to be as important a market as Ashford when I lived at Littlestone but that was long ago. I can see that being a better fit than with Hastings. Does that logic also apply to the Manchester and Milford Railway? Is that the Milford near Knott End? The K&ESLR was short and in vicinity of possible constituency. Rye was a stand alone constituency and never a demographic fit with Hastings, but a good fit to Romney Marsh/New Romney and/or villages to west of Tenterden. |
|
