Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on May 30, 2016 23:09:56 GMT
Here's a slightly different take on option 1. It allows for a fairly recognisable successor to Wantage with the upper Thames boundary retained for most of its length. There are a few flaws; in particular I'm not really convinced that if you're going to have a single Oxford seat Jericho & Osney is a good ward not to be in it, but if you exclude St. Margaret's instead then you're going to end up with a very strange shape.  Banbury & Chipping Norton 77,739 Bicester & Thame 75,959 Henley & Didcot 77,973 Abingdon & Wantage 76,976 Witney & Port Meadow 76,493 Oxford 76,194 Because ward-splitting is now allowed, I'd suggest splitting off the Jericho bit of the ward and leaving it in Oxford, and/or cutting the empty bit of the ward to improve the shape. Not that the shape really matters in this case. Although this is a very neat plan, I imagine that many of the burghers of north Oxford will be sharpening their pitchforks at the prospect of being in Mr Cameron's constituency, and if so the AC may baulk at the opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 31, 2016 7:05:00 GMT
Here's a slightly different take on option 1. It allows for a fairly recognisable successor to Wantage with the upper Thames boundary retained for most of its length. There are a few flaws; in particular I'm not really convinced that if you're going to have a single Oxford seat Jericho & Osney is a good ward not to be in it, but if you exclude St. Margaret's instead then you're going to end up with a very strange shape. Banbury & Chipping Norton 77,739 Bicester & Thame 75,959 Henley & Didcot 77,973 Abingdon & Wantage 76,976 Witney & Port Meadow 76,493 Oxford 76,194 Because ward-splitting is now allowed, I'd suggest splitting off the Jericho bit of the ward and leaving it in Oxford, and/or cutting the empty bit of the ward to improve the shape. Not that the shape really matters in this case. Although this is a very neat plan, I imagine that many of the burghers of north Oxford will be sharpening their pitchforks at the prospect of being in Mr Cameron's constituency, and if so the AC may baulk at the opposition. YL, this is a great Oxfordshire plan. I think you've nailed it. And the plan is perfectly workable without any need for ward-splitting; if we ever do split a ward, it should be because it's necessary to get a satisfactory map overall, not for minor tidying-up. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 31, 2016 7:12:08 GMT
My proposals for Surrey: 1. Spelthorne. As the current Spelthorne constituency plus the Runnymede ward of 'Egham Hythe' (which on closer inspection does not actually contain the eponymous village and appears to have more links with Staines). Electorate: 74,809. 2. Runnymede & Weybridge. As the current Runnymede & Weybridge constituency minus Egham Hythe ward and Oatlands Park wards, but plus the Elmbridge wards of Hersham North/South and the Surrey Heath ward of Chobham. Electorate: 73,526. 3. Esher & Walton. As the current Esher & Walton constituency plus Oatlands Park ward but minus Hersham North/South wards. Electorate: 74,043. 4. Camberley & Ash. As the current Surrey Heath constituency minus Chobham ward; the Ash part of the constituency (containing nearly 20% of this constituency's electorate) is not in Surrey Heath hence the name change. Electorate: 74,690. 5. Surrey East. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 77,146. 6. Reigate. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 71,778. 7. Epsom & Ewell. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 77,417. 8. Guildford. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 74,077. 9. Woking. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 72,144. 10. South West Surrey. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 74,494. 11. Dorking. Same boundaries as Mole Valley; name changed due to not being coterminous with Mole Valley and containing Guildford wards; also Dorking is more identifiable to most people than Mole Valley. Electorate: 72,400. On Spelthorne, I argued a long way upthread that the best approach to getting the seat within quota is to take the Colnbrook ward of Slough. What I had forgotten, until Adrian mentioned it in another thread recently, is that this is exactly what the BCE proposed in the final version of the zombie. It avoids any need for a cross-Thames constituency and allows better boundaries and less change in adjacent seats south of the river; to my mind, it's by far the best solution and I hope BCE will stick with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 31, 2016 9:23:57 GMT
It is a good idea taken on its own, but I'm concerned about the knock on effects on Windsor and beyond. As it stands the Windsor seat can just take Bray ward to bring it within quota but if it loses Colnebrook and Poyle it needs compensation and it already runs right up to the outskirts of Bracknell and Maidenhead towns. Technically it could take Foxborough from Slough but that would not be a good fit while moving it further West has all sorts of undesirable knock on effects for the rest of Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 31, 2016 11:12:22 GMT
Yes, I acknowledge the problem. My suggestion is to add the Hurst ward of Wokingham, which I know takes Windsor into a third UA but the UAs in Berks are so small - the size of shire districts elsewhere, as indeed they formerly were - that I think this is acceptable. Removing Hurst from Wokingham has further knock-on effects but they're all manageable; and it's all 'minimum change' in the sense that each of the existing eight seats in Berks has a clear direct successor, albeit with some marginal wards shifted in or out (except for Slough which is unchanged).
There may be other more radical solutions, possibly involving a single seat for Reading (i.e. the borough minus three or four wards on the outskirts) but I haven't explored them because I want to preserve as much as possible of the current seat pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 31, 2016 11:48:42 GMT
Yep, can be done.
WINDSOR (72621) - I had to take this south-west, to include Sandhurst, round the south side of Bracknell.
MAIDENHEAD (71759) - Keeps Bray, extends west along the Thames as far as the Reading boundary.
BRACKNELL (72232) - Bracknell town plus Binfield; and Hurst, Loddon, Coronation, S Lake from Wokingham.
WOKINGHAM (74094) - Wokingham town, the four south-eastern wards of Reading, and four more Wokingham wards to join everything up. Actually a much more compact Wokingham seat than the present one, but it extends perilously deep into Reading itself.
READING (72986) - The whole town except its four south-eastern wards.
NEWBURY (72026) - As proposed in several plans upthread.
MID BERKSHIRE (71886) - A classic of the genre: everything else lumped into a 'Mid' seat.
I stress that this isn't what I'm actually proposing, because (a) it has serious defects (e.g. Sandhurst in the Windsor seat, Wokingham extending much too far into Reading) and (b) it departs far too widely from the current seat pattern. But everything is contiguous and legal, and none of the seats extends into three UAs. (And it keeps Colnbrook out of the Windsor seat, and thus available for inclusion in Spelthorne.)
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 31, 2016 12:49:20 GMT
It is a good idea taken on its own, but I'm concerned about the knock on effects on Windsor and beyond. As it stands the Windsor seat can just take Bray ward to bring it within quota but if it loses Colnebrook and Poyle it needs compensation and it already runs right up to the outskirts of Bracknell and Maidenhead towns. Technically it could take Foxborough from Slough but that would not be a good fit while moving it further West has all sorts of undesirable knock on effects for the rest of Berkshire Last time round the BCE added Cippenham Meadows from Slough to Windsor (if you have taken out Colnebrook & Poyle then Foxborough no longer has a boundary with Windsor). |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 31, 2016 13:13:16 GMT
It is a good idea taken on its own, but I'm concerned about the knock on effects on Windsor and beyond. As it stands the Windsor seat can just take Bray ward to bring it within quota but if it loses Colnebrook and Poyle it needs compensation and it already runs right up to the outskirts of Bracknell and Maidenhead towns. Technically it could take Foxborough from Slough but that would not be a good fit while moving it further West has all sorts of undesirable knock on effects for the rest of Berkshire Last time round the BCE added Cippenham Meadows from Slough to Windsor (if you have taken out Colnebrook & Poyle then Foxborough no longer has a boundary with Windsor). It actually does have a tiny boundary which doesn't show on Boundary assistant but does show here www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/Cippenham Meadows is no longer an option as it leaves Slough below quota |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Jun 1, 2016 14:43:10 GMT
I think it makes sense to review Berkshire and Oxfordshire together as one is slightly above and the other slightly below the quota. Version 1 Slough - unchanged Windsor - gains Bray Maidenhead and Henley - gains Henley and Sonning common; loses Bray, Hurst, Coronation Bracknell - unchanged In the Reading area, both seats are undersized. The minimum change requirement involved splitting Earley or Woodley (3 ways). Therefore I have taken out Purley, Pangbourne and Theale, and added in all of Woodley and Earley to Reading as a Reading NW and Reading SE Newbury - loses Aldermaston Berkshire South - renamed from Wokingham as includes more West Berkshire wards Banbury - loses Bicester but gains Kidlington Witney - unchanged Vale of White Horse - all of the Vale except some of the wards nearest Didcot South Oxfordshire - main settlements Didcot and Wallingford Oxford West - most of Oxford Bicester, Thame and Oxford East The positives with this map are: All the main Reading urban area is in 2 seats Henley and Sonning Common have good connections to Maidenhead and Sonning Eye Witney is unchanged Banbury only has wards from Cherwell The negatives with this map are: No road connection between Banbury and Kidlington without leaving the constituency No real links between Bicester, Thame and the bit of Oxford  Version 2 Maidenhead takes an extra ward in South Oxfordshire Rest of Berkshire unchanged Banbury moves South to Chipping Norton Witney takes the northern wards of the Vale of White Horse South Oxfordshire now extends further north to Thame The Summertown area of Oxford now goes in the Bicester seat instead of the areas in the East Advantages over v1 Better shaped seats in Oxfordshire Bicester has more of its natural heartland North Oxford goes better with Bicester and has good road links Disadvantages over v1 Maidenhead has to take another Oxfordshire ward which is less of a good fit West Oxfordshire is split  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 1, 2016 17:11:56 GMT
Yep, can be done. WINDSOR (72621) - I had to take this south-west, to include Sandhurst, round the south side of Bracknell. MAIDENHEAD (71759) - Keeps Bray, extends west along the Thames as far as the Reading boundary. BRACKNELL (72232) - Bracknell town plus Binfield; and Hurst, Loddon, Coronation, S Lake from Wokingham. WOKINGHAM (74094) - Wokingham town, the four south-eastern wards of Reading, and four more Wokingham wards to join everything up. Actually a much more compact Wokingham seat than the present one, but it extends perilously deep into Reading itself. READING (72986) - The whole town except its four south-eastern wards. NEWBURY (72026) - As proposed in several plans upthread. MID BERKSHIRE (71886) - A classic of the genre: everything else lumped into a 'Mid' seat. I stress that this isn't what I'm actually proposing, because (a) it has serious defects (e.g. Sandhurst in the Windsor seat, Wokingham extending much too far into Reading) and (b) it departs far too widely from the current seat pattern. But everything is contiguous and legal, and none of the seats extends into three UAs. (And it keeps Colnbrook out of the Windsor seat, and thus available for inclusion in Spelthorne.) Or you could let Bracknell (71,996) keep the three Wokingham wards it currently contains and gain adjoining Swallowfield. That allows Maidenhead (71,834) to be unchanged. Wokingham (72,920) can then lose all its West Berkshire wards and the two Shinfield wards but take everything in the existing Reading East outside the borough. That then leaves Newbury, Slough and Windsor as you have them above, and then you can make two seats out of Reading, the Shinfields and the east of West Berkshire in two ways. Option A (one seat wholly in Reading, but a three UA seat) has Reading South & Pangbourne (72,896) containing all West Berks wards not in Newbury, the Shinfields, and Whitley, Church, Redlands and Katesgrove wards of Reading, and Reading Central (73,311) containing the rest of the town. Option B (both seats partly in Reading and partly out, but no three UA seat) has Reading West & Bucklebury (74,177) containing Kentwood, Tilehurst, Norcot, Southcote and Battle wards of Reading plus all West Berks wards not in Newbury, and Reading East (72,030) containing the rest of the town plus the two Shinfield wards from Wokingham. You've still got the Sandhurst problem though. EDIT: I realise you were trying to have one seat wholly in Reading, and my option B doesn't achieve that, but it does come quite close. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 1, 2016 20:06:59 GMT
Is putting Sandhurst in Windsor really that bad? It has the advantage of allowing Binfield with Warfield and Warfield Harvest Ride to go in Bracknell where they clearly belong.
Plus adding Bray to Windsor isn't ideal either as most of the electorate lives at the Maidenhead end of the ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 2, 2016 6:39:30 GMT
Well, GKR, if you like it, you're welcome to run with it.
And I admit there is a certain appeal to a constituency containing Windsor, Ascot and Sandhurst. If you were of a certain social status, you could probably lead your entire life without ever leaving the seat.
But seriously, I still prefer an arrangement that better maintains the existing seat pattern. I acknowledge that my proposals involve two seats (Windsor and Reading W) that run into three UAs, but in the context of Berkshire I think this is acceptable because of the small size of the UAs (and I note that one of these seats, Windsor, already extends into the three UAs of W&M, Bracknell Forest and Slough - all I'm doing is substituting Wokingham for Slough).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 2, 2016 11:13:11 GMT
Well, GKR, if you like it, you're welcome to run with it. And I admit there is a certain appeal to a constituency containing Windsor, Ascot and Sandhurst. If you were of a certain social status, you could probably lead your entire life without ever leaving the seat. Not to mention Eton |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 11, 2016 6:46:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 17, 2016 16:45:28 GMT
And so to the largest region, South East, with 83 seats (including the IoW).  SE-A (Oxfordshire): 461334 = 6.17 = 6I'm listing this as much for completeness' sake as anything because this is exactly as per YL's suggestion a page or two upthread. ABINGDON AND WANTAGE - 76976 BANBURY - 77739 BICESTER AND THAME - 75959. It's the dramatic growth of Bicester that means there have to be major changes even though the county retains its current six seats. HENLEY AND DIDCOT - 77973 OXFORD - 76194 WITNEY - 76493 SE-B (Bucks): 536534 = 7.18 = 7Again, much as others have suggested. I haven't checked back to see whether anyone has set out the precise configuration I have here. AYLESBURY - 75384 BEACONSFIELD - 77434 BUCKINGHAM - 77245 CHESHAM AND AMERSHAM - 77884 MILTON KEYNES NORTH - 72494 MILTON KEYNES SOUTH - 78095 WYCOMBE - 77998 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 17, 2016 17:13:28 GMT
More South East ...  SE-C (Berks (excl Slough)): 507604 = 6.79 = 7 seatsThis group is well short on numbers for 7 seats and keeping everything above quota is like threading a needle. I used Pete Whitehead's plan as a starting point (so thanks to him for it) but he had a Slough ward in Windsor and I wanted to avoid this since I had other plans for the ward in question (see the next group). Numbers are so tight in Berks that the removal of a single ward had ripple effects across most of the county. Note that this plan has two seats that extend into three UAs; I've posted upthread an alternative that avoids this, but I haven't adopted it because (i) it's too great a departure from the current map, and (ii) it involves a Windsor seat that I feel is unsatisfactory. BRACKNELL - 72615 MAIDENHEAD - 71134 NEWBURY - 72026 READING EAST - 73899 READING WEST - 72080. Unfortunately I had to include a Wokingham ward to get above the minimum, so this extends into three UAs WINDSOR - 72914. Also a three-UA seat, but I'm less apologetic about this because the current Windsor seat also includes parts of three UAs (albeit not the same three). WOKINGHAM - 72936  SE-D (Surrey, Slough): 896596 = 11.99 = 12
In effect, Slough and Spelthorne form a subgroup with 150371 = 2.01. Linking Slough with Surrey allows me to borrow a ward to get Spelthorne above quota and avoid a cross-Thames seat. The BCE did the same in the zombie review. This allows minimal change in the rest of Surrey - most of the seats are unaltered (except that I've changed some of the more obscure names). CHERTSEY AND WEYBRIDGE - 75393 EPSOM AND EWELL - 77417 ESHER AND WALTON - 73791 GUILDFORD - 74077 REIGATE - 71778 SLOUGH - 76668 STAINES - 73703 EAST SURREY - 77146 MID SURREY - 72400. Or 'Dorking'. NORTH WEST SURREY - 77585 SOUTH WEST SURREY - 74494 WOKING - 72144 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2016 9:04:41 GMT
The next instalment of the South East...  SE-E (Hants (excl So'ton)): 1125327 = 15.05 = 15I've tinkered quite a lot with the details of this plan, but I think I'm now settled on the arrangement set out here. ALDERSHOT - 74538 BASINGSTOKE - 78026 EASTLEIGH - 77814 FAREHAM - 75724 GOSPORT - 72357 EAST HAMPSHIRE - 77003. The town of Alton sticks out like a starfish. The problem is not so much the inclusion of Alton, which makes perfect sense, but the fact that adding more surrounding territory at the northern end of the seat would mean displacing Horndean at the other end - which would have knock-on implications that make it difficult to draw a sensible Winchester seat. NORTH EAST HAMPSHIRE - 75296 NORTH WEST HAMPSHIRE - 74059 HAVANT - 77739 NEW FOREST EAST - 71844. I've left the name as is, but doesn't the normal convention imply that this should be 'East New Forest'? (Likewise for the following seat, of course.) Couldn't we just call this seat 'Totton & Brockenhurst' or something like that? NEW FOREST WEST - 71289. Or 'Lymington & Ringwood'. Or 'SW Hants'. PORTSMOUTH NORTH - 74077 PORTSMOUTH SOUTH - 75389 ROMSEY - 76269. Could be 'W Hants' if preferred. WINCHESTER - 73903. After much chopping and changing I've decided that this is the best configuration for the wards surrounding the city itself. SE-F (Southampton): 148179 = 1.98 = 2SOUTHAMPTON ITCHEN - 75474 SOUTHAMPTON TEST - 72705  SE-G (W Sussex): 598549 = 8.01 =8The county retains its eight seats so I've gone for minimum change (even though I dislike the splitting of Worthing). ARUNDEL AND SOUTH DOWNS - 76681. Or simply 'Arundel'. BOGNOR REGIS AND LITTLEHAMPTON - 72190 CHICHESTER - 75087 CRAWLEY - 74325 HORSHAM - 77302 MID SUSSEX - 77031. Marginally less weird and squiggly than the current seat. WORTHING EAST AND SHOREHAM - 71723 WORTHING WEST - 74210 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2016 10:37:40 GMT
Let me conclude the mammoth South East region.   SE-H (Kent, E Sussex): 1793352 = 23.99 = 24
This is a very large and unwieldy group. It can be made slightly more manageable by splitting off the five LAs in east Kent as a subgroup (445370 = 5.96 = 6). I found this a difficult area, and I frankly acknowledge that there are some problems I haven't been able fully to resolve; but I think all the other plans posted upthread also have significant drawbacks (as well as strengths, of course). Because this is a tricky area and I haven't posted a plan before, I've added more comments than usual. ASHFORD - 76678 BEXHILL AND BATTLE - 77928. A key issue in East Sussex was to get the seat of Lewes to extend far enough north to include Uckfield. This meant it could include Hailsham or Polegate but not both. Hailsham seemed unavoidable, so I had to swap Polegate into this seat, meaning that unfortunately it could not remain unchanged even though it was within quota. BRIGHTON KEMPTOWN - 71505. The existing seats in Brighton are much too small so it's necessary for this seat to extend further along the coast, all the way to Seaford. Moreover, ward sizes and configurations in Brighton are very difficult; this is one of the few areas where I think there's a decent argument for a ward split. Nevertheless, I wanted (a) to avoid a split, and (b) not to divide Seaford. Both of these are achieved by 'retroswapping' Woodingdean out of Brighton into the Lewes seat. It's not a perfect solution, but it makes more sense than might at first appear because Woodingdean is very much a distinct community within Brighton, physically separated from the rest of the town by high ground (an OS map shows this very clearly). Removing Woodingdean leaves Brighton Kemptown as an exceptionally long, thin seat strung out along the coast (although with the A259 to hold it all together); it also has the characteristic (shared with Norwich North) that a smaller and smaller proportion of it is drawn from the town it's named after. BRIGHTON PAVILION - 71527. Both Brighton seats came out very small, meaning I couldn't afford too many small seats elsewhere in this group. CANTERBURY - 71242. Another small seat; it had to stretch south almost to Ashford town to get above the minimum. But I still feel it's better to keep Canterbury and Faversham in separate seats. CHATHAM AND MALLING - 72433. The current 'Chatham and Aylesford' seat is awkwardly shaped, and aggravates the offence by not actually including the heart of Chatham: the High Street, railway station and historic waterfront are all in the Rochester seat. I'm frustrated that I haven't been able to rectify this; in fact, I've made the seat slightly more awkward by extending it further into the middle of Kent to include the Mallings. DARTFORD - 72180. Better news here: this now coincides with the district. DOVER - 72940. Unchanged. EASTBOURNE - 76546. The current seat is within range but I've added a ward in the general interests of depriving Lewes of its coastline and allowing it to expand northwards. FAVERSHAM AND MID KENT - 72953. Much as the present seat but to get it up to size I've added Staplehurst (which is fine) and Loose (of which I much regret the necessity because it belongs with Maidstone). I've left the name but I think it's belt and braces - either 'Faversham' or 'Mid Kent' by itself would be fine. FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE - 77333. Identical with Shepway district. GILLINGHAM - 75283. It's a plus point for this plan (compared with some others upthread) that this seat is kept wholly within Medway UA. GRAVESEND - 75208 HASTINGS AND RYE - 77460. The existing seat was within range (71672) but I had to add a couple of wards to allow the Bexhill seat to take Polegate. HOVE - 74716. I've left the name even though the seat now includes Regency ward, which is unequivocally part of Brighton. LEWES - 78195. Having lost Polegate to Bexhill, and its entire coastline to the expanded Kemptown and Eastbourne seats, and even despite picking up Woodingdean from Brighton, this seat can now expand northwards to Uckfield, thus absorbing much of the abolished Wealden constituency. MAIDSTONE - 76134. The seat loses its southern extension (the 'Weald' bit) and instead expands west to take in the middle parts of Tonbridge & Malling district. This isn't a pretty arrangement - Pete Whitehead's Maidstone is a thing of beauty by comparison. But it's legal and contiguous, and something has to be done with the bits of Tonbridge & Malling that aren't Tonbridge or Malling. MARGATE AND RAMSGATE - 74268. The seaside towns at the eastern end of Thanet. Pegwell ought to be included but it's needed to make up numbers elsewhere. ROCHESTER AND STROOD - 75317. Unchanged. SANDWICH AND HERNE BAY - 72909. SEVENOAKS - 75919 SITTINGBOURNE AND SHEPPEY - 75638. A lot of plans upthread have altered this seat but it's actually a very sensible one and within range so I'm pleased to be able to leave it as is. TONBRIDGE AND CROWBOROUGH - 72660. The key question is - where do you put the cross-county seat? And specifically, if you want a seat coterminous with Tunbridge Wells district (and I do), do you go round the eastern side or the western? I've chosen to go round the western side: hence this seat, which unites much of the present Tonbridge & Malling seat (but not Malling or other areas north of Tonbridge town; nor Edenbridge which is needed for Sevenoaks) with the northern part of the abolished Wealden seat in Sussex - basically, Crowborough and surrounding villages. I'm not claiming this is a perfect union - far from it - but, as I say, this whole area is difficult. TUNBRIDGE WELLS - 76380. Coterminous with the district, a major point in favour of this scheme.  SE-I (Isle of Wight): 105448 = 1.41 = 2 (protected)EAST WIGHT - 53268 WEST WIGHT - 52180 |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 18, 2016 12:52:36 GMT
It's a bit odd that the cross-border seat includes Tonbridge, which isn't next to the border, instead of Tunbridge Wells, which is. (My Bexhill & Weald seat is probably even worse from that point of view. Having the cross-border seat approximately where you suggest is quite a good idea.) And in Kent/Hants you have quite a few towns which are on the edge of their seats rather than in the middle of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2016 15:16:36 GMT
Adrian, thanks for your comments.
I'm pleading guilty to the charge of having a lot of towns at the edges of their seats. I did try to minimize this: for instance, I realized that Winchester would inevitably be at the edge of its seat so I did a lot of shuffling of adjoining rural wards to try to ensure it wouldn't be too isolated; and for similar reasons I kept Hildenborough in the Tonbridge seat. But elsewhere, it was a struggle. Maidstone is tucked right into one corner of the seat named after it, and Alton (over in Hants) is even worse. All I can say in extenuation is: (i) the Kent / E Sussex area is inherently difficult and all the plans on here have significant weaknesses; (ii) it's always nice when a town is comfortably settled in a seat with a reasonable hinterland around it, but in the end this feature is a 'nice to have' as opposed to a 'must have'.
As for Tonbridge, I see your point but on the other hand, I thought I should have a Tunbridge Wells seat identical to the district if I could; and I'm slightly surprised that other suggestions here don't seem to have attached any value to this since surely a district with the right numbers should get a seat to itself if reasonably possible.
Way back on 3 Mar Pete Whitehead posted a plan doing exactly what you suggest: crossing the county boundary at Tunbridge Wells. His plan also incorporates a far better Maidstone than mine. But I feel he ran into problems elsewhere, which is why I've gone for a different approach.
|
|
