|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 14, 2016 23:28:10 GMT
Surrey without areas (Banstead, Caterham & Warlingham, Epsom & Ewell, Esher, Staines, Sunbury and Walton & Weybridge) recommended to go into Greater London by the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London Runnymede 71294 Woking 77911 Surrey Heath 76649 Guildford 73226 Waverley 71265 Mole Valley 74513 Reigate 77521
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 15, 2016 7:18:54 GMT
Kent without areas (Dartford) considered but declined for inclusion in Greater London Gravesham 75001 Sevenoaks 76232 Tonbridge 77537 Maidstone West & Malling 75173 Strood 76592 Gillingham & Rainham 74631 Rochester & Chatham 77566 Maidstone East 76961 Tunbridge Wells 71917 Swale 77472 Canterbury & Faversham 75660 Herne Bay 75023 Thanet 78130 Dover 74928 Ashford 76967 Shepway 77333 Rother 78198 Hastings & Bexhill 78497 Lewes 77289 Eastbourne 74670 Brighton Kemptown & Seaford 71505 Brighton Pavilion 78743 Hove 74716
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 17, 2016 23:26:57 GMT
ZOMBIE REVIEW
ZOMBIE REVIEW SEATS OUT OF QUOTA Changes to seat to get on quota
Banbury loses Fringford to Henley & Thame
Didcot & Wantage loses Drayton and Marcham and Sutton Courtenay to Oxford West & Abingdon
Oxford West & Abingdon loses Carfax and North and St Margarets to Oxford East gains Drayton and Marcham and Sutton Courtenay from Didcot & Wantage
Oxford East gains Carfax and North and St Margarets from Oxford West & Abingdon
Henley & Thame loses Kennington & Radley and Sandford & Wittenhams to Oxford West & Abingdon gains Fringford from Banbury
Milton Keynes South RENAMED Milton Keynes South West loses Stony Stratford and Tattenhoe to Buckingham loses Danesborough & Walton and Monkston to Milton Keynes North gains Stantonbury from Milton Keynes North
Buckingham gains Stony Stratford and Tattenhoe from Milton Keynes South
Aylesbury loses Bledlow & Bradenham to Wycombe
Newbury loses Baslidon and Bucklebury to Reading West
Reading West loses Battle to Reading East gains Baslidon and Bucklebury from Newbury
Reading East gains Battle from Reading West
Runnymede & Weybridge gains Hersham South from Esher & Walton
Esher & Walton loses Hersham South to Runnymede & Weybridge
North East Hampshire & Alton loses The Alresfordes and Four Marks & Medstead to East Hampshire gains Binsted & Bentley from East Hampshire
North West Hampshire loses Upton Grey & The Candovers to North East Hampshire & Alton
New Forest East gains Dun Valley from Romsey
Southampton Itchen gains Netley Abbey from Eastleigh
Portsmouth West gains St Jude from Portsmouth East
Mid Sussex loses Bolney to Arundel & South Downs
Brighton East & Seahaven loses Woodingdean to Lewes
Lewes gains Woodingdean from Brighton East & Seahaven
Tunbridge Wells gains Brenchley & Horsmonden from The Weald
Chatham & Malling gains Kings Hill from Tonbridge
Ashford loses Isle of Oxney and St Michaels and Rolvenden & Tenterden West and Tenterden North and Tenterden South to The Weald gains North Weald from The Weald gains Saxon Shore from Folkestone & Hythe
Dover & Deal loses North Downs East to Folkestone & Hythe
SEATS WITHIN QUOTA CHANGED
Milton Keynes North RENAMED Milton Keynes North East loses Stantonbury to Milton Keynes South gains Danesborough & Walton and Monkston from Milton Keynes South
Wycombe gains Bledlow & Bradenham from Aylesbury
East Hampshire loses Cowplain to Havant loses Binsted & Bentley to North East Hampshire & Alton gains The Alresfordes and Four Marks & Medstead to North East Hampshire & Alton
Romsey loses Dun Valley to New Forest East
Eastleigh loses Netley Abbey to Southampton Itchen
Portsmouth East loses St Jude to Portsmouth West gains Stakes from Havant
Havant loses Stakes to Havant gains Cowplain from East Hampshire
Arundel & South Downs gains Bolney from Mid Sussex
The Weald loses Brenchley & Horsmonden to Tunbridge Wells loses North Weald to Ashford gains Isle of Oxney and St Michaels and Rolvenden & Tenterden West and Tenterden North and Tenterden South from Ashford
Folkestone & Hythe loses Saxon Shore to Ashford gains North Downs East from Dover & Deal
Tonbridge loses Kings Hill to Chatham & Malling
SEATS UNCHANGED FROM ZOMBIE REVIEW
Witney Chesham & Amersham Beaconsfield Wokingham Maidenhead Bracknell Windsor Slough Spelthorne Woking Surrey Heath Guildford South West Surrey Mid Surrey Epsom & Ewell Reigate East Surrey Aldershot Basingstoke Winchester New Forest West Southampton Test Fareham Gosport Chichester Bognor Regis & Littlehampton Worthing West Worthing East & Shoreham Horsham Crawley Hove Brighton Pavillion Eastbourne Bexhill & Battle Hastings & Rye Sevenoaks Dartford Gravesham Rochester & Strood Gillingham & Rainham Maidstone Sittingbourne & Sheppey Canterbury & Faversham East Thanet Herne Bay
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Aug 24, 2016 21:06:53 GMT
As an completenovice, but absolutely fascinated, with this sortof thing and having plenty of free time I've decided to jump inthe water and present a proposal for Hampshire. I'm expecting to have my head bitten off and presume that there is quite a lot of "pitchfork bait" contained within!!!
I picked Hampshire because I have no real knowledge of the area and wanted to approach the task with nothing set in stone. I think the proposal starts off conventional and then maybe drifts off into realms of fantasy. Where necessary I’ll add my thinking so you’ll know why I’m going wrong! The first 8 constituencies appear to be normal as follows: Havant & Waterloo – gains Waterloo, Cow Pain and Hart Plain from Meon Valley. Loses Stakes and Purbrook to Portsmouth North. (77739)
Portsmouth South – gains Baffins from Portsmouth North. (75389)
Portsmouth North – gains Stakes and Purbrook wardsfrom Havant & Waterloo. Loses Baffins to Portsmouth South. (74077)
Gosport – no change. (72357)
Fareham – no change. (75724)
Eastleigh – no change. (77814)
Southampton Itchen – gains Portswood ward from Southampton Test and Swaythling ward from Romsey& Southampton North. (74822)
Southampton Test – gains Basset wards from Romsey & Southampton North and loses Portswood ward toSouthampton Itchen. (73357)
Up to this point it was relativelystraightforward, but the New Forest constituencies were well short of quota and the only place they could be stolen from was Romsey & Southampton North. This had already lost its two largest wards and was already the smallest constituency in Hampshire. I decided to pair Romsey with New Forest West mainly because of the M27 running through both constituencies, although I’m sure there a plenty of swaps between the two that can be made.
New Forest East – gains Buckland, Lymington and Pennington wards from New Forest West. Loses Bramshaw, Copythorne North and Minstead & Ashurst, Copythorne South and Netley Marsh wards to New Forest West. (76296)
New Forest West & Romney – in addition to the changes mentioned above gains Blackwater, Romsey Extra, Abbey, Cupernham & Tadburn from Romsey & Southampton North. (78495)
Now there is only an electorate of 26,000 remaining in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency so it is fairly obvious that these will have to be split between Winchester and Hampshire North West which means that Romsey and Southampton North is the seat that disappears.
Winchester & Chandler's Ford – original Winchester constituency gains Chilworth, Valley Park, Ampfield and Braishfield & Kings Somborne and Michelmersh wards from Romsey and Southampton North. Loses Wonston and Micheldever wards to Andover and also loses Itchen Valley and The Alresfords to Petersfield and Horndean. (74999)
Andover – formerly Hampshire North West.Gains Overwallop, Broughton and Stockbridge & Dun Valley wards from Romsey and Southampton North. Also gains Wonston and Micheldever wards from Winchester. Loses Oakley and North Waltham, Baughurst and Tadley North, Tadley Central & Tadley South to North East Hants. (74514)
North East Hants – in addition to the abovegains also gains the reminder of the split Yateley East ward from Aldershot & Farnborough. Loses Upton Grey and The Candovers &Odiham wards to Alton & Borden. (75178)
Basingstoke – loses Basin Ward to Alton & Borden. (71401)
Aldershot & Farnborough – gains rest of the split Yateley East Ward from North East Hants. (74538)
Alton & Borden – formally Hampshire East. In addition to the gains from North East Hants also gains Basin ward from Basingstoke. Loses all 6 Peterfield and Hordean Wards & East Meon Ward. (72599)
Petersfield and Horndean – the remaining three wards of Winchester, the seven wards from Alton & Borden (HampshireEast) and the remaining 17 wards from Meon Valley. (71856)
Given the apparent dislike of the name Meon Valley for a constituency name I struggled to think of anything better than Petersfieldand Horndean, which are probably too easterly for for the finalconstituency, I’m sure somebody can do better.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 25, 2016 7:20:20 GMT
Yes Hampshire is an interesting puzzle to which there are many solutions. In my experience you are always left with a dumb constituency somewhere in the centre. Your Petersfield & Horndean seat, or my Alton & Hampshire Central, or if you check back on the thread a number of others.
You can just about fit 2 seats into the New Forest without adding Romsey town. I have linked Romsey with Winchester town across Chandlers Ford (already in Winchester constituency).
There has been some discussion in detail around Portsmouth, but the basic outline is as you describe.
Rushmoor is a bit of a nuisance. You don't really want to split Yateley.
An alternative approach is to keep Winchester District largely together and work round it, rather than carving it into lots of pieces to make neighbouring seats add up. However you soon run into other problems that way.....
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Aug 25, 2016 8:12:12 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I understand the problem with Yateley but was trying to avoid split wards as far as possible. Although one of my earlier efforts did keep Yateley whole but as I had separated Andover from Farnborough and linked it to Fleet instead I thought it might be going too far. Although knowing local rivalries in my neck of the woods some might prefer it. As sort of Andover Brexit from Rushmoor!
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Aug 25, 2016 8:40:01 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I understand the problem with Yateley but was trying to avoid split wards as far as possible. Although one of my earlier efforts did keep Yateley whole but as I had separated Andover from Farnborough and linked it to Fleet instead I thought it might be going too far. Although knowing local rivalries in my neck of the woods some might prefer it. As sort of Andover Brexit from Rushmoor! Andrexit! Sounds shit!
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 25, 2016 10:17:48 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I understand the problem with Yateley but was trying to avoid split wards as far as possible. Although one of my earlier efforts did keep Yateley whole but as I had separated Andover from Farnborough and linked it to Fleet instead I thought it might be going too far. Although knowing local rivalries in my neck of the woods some might prefer it. As sort of Andover Brexit from Rushmoor! Andrexit! Sounds shit! Andrexit voters are being sold a pup!
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,548
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 25, 2016 12:28:02 GMT
Yes Hampshire is an interesting puzzle to which there are many solutions. In my experience you are always left with a dumb constituency somewhere in the centre. Your Petersfield & Horndean seat, or my Alton & Hampshire Central, or if you check back on the thread a number of others. You can just about fit 2 seats into the New Forest without adding Romsey town. I have linked Romsey with Winchester town across Chandlers Ford (already in Winchester constituency). There has been some discussion in detail around Portsmouth, but the basic outline is as you describe. Rushmoor is a bit of a nuisance. You don't really want to split Yateley. An alternative approach is to keep Winchester District largely together and work round it, rather than carving it into lots of pieces to make neighbouring seats add up. However you soon run into other problems that way..... And as I've said previously on this thread, Winchester district isn't really desirable to keep together in one seat anyway as its a bizarre mess of an authority. Three different postcode areas just about sums it up... As far as Yateley goes, splitting it isn't ideal but it already is split and has been for some time (the town council area stretches outside even the old Yateley wards). The key thing is to abolish Meon Valley (as it was the additional seat in 2010 and it's a horror show) and use existing Eastleigh as a keystone. The joy this time is at least there's no need to even try to split any wards and convince the Boundary Commission.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,548
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 25, 2016 12:29:57 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I understand the problem with Yateley but was trying to avoid split wards as far as possible. Although one of my earlier efforts did keep Yateley whole but as I had separated Andover from Farnborough and linked it to Fleet instead I thought it might be going too far. Although knowing local rivalries in my neck of the woods some might prefer it. As sort of Andover Brexit from Rushmoor! Erm, I think you mean Aldershot...
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 25, 2016 14:09:13 GMT
Khunanup, the borough of Rushmoor also has the town of Farnborough in it, which is why it did not get named Aldershot when it was created by the Local Government Act of 1972. Many of these silly-sounding names are compromises used to appease locals arguing about which of their towns/cities their local authority should be named after.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 25, 2016 17:47:59 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I understand the problem with Yateley but was trying to avoid split wards as far as possible. Although one of my earlier efforts did keep Yateley whole but as I had separated Andover from Farnborough and linked it to Fleet instead I thought it might be going too far. Although knowing local rivalries in my neck of the woods some might prefer it. As sort of Andover Brexit from Rushmoor! Andrexit! Sounds shit! A soft Brexit does have the advantage of stronger trade links, but might end up taking a very very long time.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,548
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 25, 2016 18:07:57 GMT
Khunanup, the borough of Rushmoor also has the town of Farnborough in it, which is why it did not get named Aldershot when it was created by the Local Government Act of 1972. Many of these silly-sounding names are compromises used to appease locals arguing about which of their towns/cities their local authority should be named after. I'm entirely aware of this. My aside was that Andover and Aldershot were being confused...
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Aug 25, 2016 19:36:49 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I understand the problem with Yateley but was trying to avoid split wards as far as possible. Although one of my earlier efforts did keep Yateley whole but as I had separated Andover from Farnborough and linked it to Fleet instead I thought it might be going too far. Although knowing local rivalries in my neck of the woods some might prefer it. As sort of Andover Brexit from Rushmoor! Erm, I think you mean Aldershot...
Yes I did , apologies for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 26, 2016 7:50:42 GMT
My proposals for Berkshire (which unites Reading as much as possible):
1. Slough. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 76,668. 2. Reading. All Reading wards except for Tilehurst, Kentwood, and Norcot. Electorate: 75,946. 3. Windsor. As the current Windsor constituency plus Cox Green ward. Electorate: 73,691. 4. Bracknell. As the current Bracknell constituency (adjusted) minus Wokingham Without ward. Electorate: 72,197. 5. Maidenhead. As the current Maidenhead constituency minus Cox Green, Twyford, and Hurst, but plus the wards of Bulmershe & Whitegates, South Lake, and Loddon (all three of which are part of the current Reading East). Electorate: 71,833. 6. Wokingham. The Wokingham wards of Wokingham Without, Finchampstead North, Evendons, Westcott, Norreys, Emmbrook, Barkham, Hillside, Hawkedon, Winnersh, Maiden Erlegh and Arborfield, plus the Maidenhead wards of Hurst and Twyford. Electorate: 72,784. 7. Theale. The Reading wards of Tilehurst, Kentwood, and Norcot, the Wokingham wards of Shinfield North/South, and Swallowfield, and the West Berkshire wards of Mortimer, Burghfield, Calcot, Theale, Sulhamstead, Bucklebury, Basildon, Pangbourne, Purley on Thames, Birch Copse, and Westwood. Electorate: 72,820. 8. Newbury. As the current Newbury constituency minus Bucklebury and Basildon wards. Electorate: 71,737.
Berkshire proposals map
Revised and finalised proposals of mine for Berkshire (the consultation opens next month)
1. Slough (76,668). Unchanged. 2. Reading North (73,027). The West Berkshire ward of Westwood (part of the Reading conurbation in reality), and all Reading wards except for Southcote, Minster, Whitley and Church. Similar to the Reading North seat of 1974-83. 3. Reading South (74,486). The West Berkshire wards of Birch Copse and Calcot, the Reading wards of Southcote, Minster, Whitley, and Church, and the Wokingham wards of Hillside, Hawkedon, Maiden Erlegh, Bulmershe & Whitegates, South Lake, and Loddon (also part of the Reading conurbation). Similar to the Reading South seat of 1974-83. 4. Newbury (72,026). Loses Aldermaston and Bucklebury wards. 5. Maidenhead (71,834). Unchanged. 6. Windsor (72,776). Adds the Bracknell Forest ward of Crowthorne. 7. Bracknell (72,985). Loses Crowthorne ward. 8. Wokingham (73,884). All West Berkshire wards not in Reading North, Reading South, or Newbury, and all Wokingham wards not included in Reading South or Bracknell. Still similar enough to the current Wokingham constituency.
This reminds me that some time ago I suggested a plan for Berkshire (less Slough) that kept as much of Reading as possible in a single seat and did not have any seat crossing into three UAs. But I don't think I ever posted a map. The area as a whole is seriously light on numbers for 7 constituencies (entitlement 6.79) so all the seats are on the small side, viz: Newbury - 72026 Mid Berkshire - 71886 Reading - 72986 Wokingham - 74094 Bracknell - 72232 Maidenhead - 71759 Windsor - 72621 There's too much wrong with this for it to be my preferred plan - it's a long way from 'minimum change', the Wokingham seat protrudes much too far into Reading, and the Windsor seat is a mess with poor internal comms. But it's all continuous and legal and it avoids the two three-UA seats in my preferred plan posted upthread, so I'm putting it up here in case anyone wants to run with it.
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Sept 1, 2016 11:16:41 GMT
Whilst playing around with Berks & Bucks I came across a min change solution (with a kicker) for Berks as follows:-
All changes from original.
Newbury - loses Aldermaston to Wokingham. (76793) Wokingham - as above then loses Maiden Erlegy to Reading E. (72505) Reading E. - as above then loses Mapledurham to reading W. (72024) Reading W. - as above. (72101) Bracknell - n/c. (76917) Slough - n/c. (76668) Windsor - gains Bray from Maidenhead. (74133) Maidenhead - gains Burnham Lent Rise and Taplow from BEACONSFIELD.
As we know there are forced changes in just about every Bucks constituency due to the Milton Keynes numbers flowing south so to speak therefore wouldn't minimising changes in Berkshire be a price worth paying for breaking the boundary. It is not as if is has not going to happen elsewhere. Or doesn't this come into consideration?
For Islington - not sure if your solution to avoiding a Thames crossing in your Surrey plan would work with this.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 1, 2016 12:13:07 GMT
It's an ingenious idea, but there are a couple of flaws:
1. Mapledurham doesn't have any crossing across the Thames, so I don't think you can put it in Reading East. This is fixable by keeping in in West and adding a West Berkshire ward to East instead. 2. It does rule out islington's solution for Surrey (by around 300 electors), which takes away from the minimum change advantages. You could fix it by taking a ward from Bracknell, but Windsor cuts too far into Bracknell as it is. Alternatively, you could give the Sandhurst area to Windsor and put Warfield Harvest Ride, Binfield & Warfield and Winfield & Cranbourne into Bracknell, but that starts to look very ugly. Alternatively, you can fiddle more with Wokingham, but again it'll get ugly.
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Sept 1, 2016 19:27:56 GMT
It's an ingenious idea, but there are a couple of flaws: 1. Mapledurham doesn't have any crossing across the Thames, so I don't think you can put it in Reading East. This is fixable by keeping in in West and adding a West Berkshire ward to East instead. 2. It does rule out islington's solution for Surrey (by around 300 electors), which takes away from the minimum change advantages. You could fix it by taking a ward from Bracknell, but Windsor cuts too far into Bracknell as it is. Alternatively, you could give the Sandhurst area to Windsor and put Warfield Harvest Ride, Binfield & Warfield and Winfield & Cranbourne into Bracknell, but that starts to look very ugly. Alternatively, you can fiddle more with Wokingham, but again it'll get ugly.
I never noticed that, may I play my Fleetwood joker?
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 1, 2016 20:35:27 GMT
Whilst playing around with Berks & Bucks I came across a min change solution (with a kicker) for Berks as follows:- All changes from original. Newbury - loses Aldermaston to Wokingham. (76793) Wokingham - as above then loses Maiden Erlegy to Reading E. (72505) Reading E. - as above then loses Mapledurham to reading W. (72024) Reading W. - as above. (72101) Bracknell - n/c. (76917) Slough - n/c. (76668) Windsor - gains Bray from Maidenhead. (74133) Maidenhead - gains Burnham Lent Rise and Taplow from BEACONSFIELD. As we know there are forced changes in just about every Bucks constituency due to the Milton Keynes numbers flowing south so to speak therefore wouldn't minimising changes in Berkshire be a price worth paying for breaking the boundary. It is not as if is has not going to happen elsewhere. Or doesn't this come into consideration? For Islington - not sure if your solution to avoiding a Thames crossing in your Surrey plan would work with this. I came up with the idea of adding Burnham & Taplow to Maidenhead as well. Makes Berkshire much easier, and avoids having to split Slough or Bracknell towns.
I'm still not satisfied though with my arrangements of Reading & Wokingham, and need to have another go.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 1, 2016 21:03:47 GMT
I've had a play, and it looks to me like Marlow would make the numbers slightly easier than Burnham and Taplow.
|
|