|
Post by erimus58 on Sept 2, 2016 4:58:16 GMT
I've had a play, and it looks to me like Marlow would make the numbers slightly easier than Burnham and Taplow.
Thanks for that suggestion, I 've had a play around and in order to prevent rafts being used on polling day in the Northern reaches of Reading I'll make the following changes:-
Newbury - loses Aldermaston to Wokingham. (76793) Wokingham - as above then loses Maiden Erlegy to Reading E. (72505) Reading E. - as above and also gains Coronation from Maidenhead then loses Katesgrove to Reading W. (73535) Reading W. - as above. (74971) Bracknell - n/c. (76917) Slough - n/c. (76668) Windsor - gains Bray from Maidenhead. (74133) Maidenhead - as above changes and gains the two Marlow wards from BEACONSFIELD. (72437)
I'm fairly sure that Marlow is a better fit to Maidenhead than Woodley. Woodley probably has more links to Reading I would have thought
The reasons I like this is that you get two fairly compact Reading seats and it is relatively minimum change
Still doesn't help solve the Colnbrook with Poyle problem for islington although he is quite we come to take something from Feltham to make my London proposal better! Which reminds me I have a Heathrow, Feltham and Twickenham problem to solve.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 2, 2016 9:19:35 GMT
If you want to get Colnbrooke with Poyle out, then Windsor either needs to take a ward from Bracknell town, or to grab Hurst from Maidenhead, with Reading West going further west rather than taking Katesgrove. Both have obvious downsides, so very much a matter of personal choice.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 2, 2016 9:29:01 GMT
Erimus and EAL
First of all, it's kind of you to credit me with the idea of using the Colnbrook ward of Slough to solve the Spelthorne problem, and it's true that I thought of it independently; but Adrian subsequently pointed out that the BCE came up with the same idea in the zombie (revised proposals) so I must acknowledge their prior claim to it.
Secondly, I'm grateful to both of you for your solicitude for my scheme, but I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve. Yes, Bucks is heavy on numbers and Berks is light, but it's possible to treat them separately so crossing the boundary isn't necessary. You can do it, of course, but the test would be the same as for splitting a ward: i.e. that it allows a substantially (not slightly) better map than can be achieved otherwise.
So I'm still happy to stick with the Berks plan I posted back to 17 Jun, which treats Slough UA with Surrey (thus allowing me to play what Erimus might call the Colnbrook joker) and is surely not too bad in terms of minimum change in the rest of Berks - all the current seats survive in recognizable form, with just a few wards shifted at the margins. Even in Wokingham, which has the biggest changes, 13 of its 16 wards stay intact. To be exact: Newbury: + 0, - 2 Reading W: + 1, - 0 Reading E: + 2, - 1 Wokingham: + 3, - 3 Bracknell: + 0, - 1 Maidenhead: + 1, - 1 Windsor: + 2, - 1
The main problems with this plan are (a) that Windsor and Reading W extend into 3 UAs (although Windsor does already), and (b) that Wokingham UA is spread all over Berkshire, being divided between no fewer than six seats. I have an alternative plan that gets rid of the three-UA seats and splits Wokingham UA between a mere four seats (see 26 Aug). I might well prefer this scheme if 'minimum change' were not a consideration; but it is, so I don't.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 2, 2016 9:58:32 GMT
If you want to get Colnbrooke with Poyle out, then Windsor either needs to take a ward from Bracknell town, or to grab Hurst from Maidenhead, with Reading West going further west rather than taking Katesgrove. Both have obvious downsides, so very much a matter of personal choice. Or just add Shinfield N ward to Reading W and leave it otherwise unchanged. True, it's a second 3-UA seat (in addition to Windsor, which is 3 UAs already) but it works OK on the ground. Shinfield N is definitely part of the built-up Reading area and is very firmly separated from the rest of Wokingham (and of Shinfield parish) by the M4 motorway.
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Sept 2, 2016 11:14:37 GMT
Islington,
The purpose of the exercise from my point of view was a min change Berks. I wasn't particularly trying to solve any problem but just wondered if a willingness to cross boundaries within a region occasionally was an acceptable proposal in order to reduce overall change.
I realise that they can be solved independently but so can Kent & E Sussex but I doubt that any serious proposal for those areas is not going to be cross-border.
I will point out that in Berks you have 18 ward changes whereas I only have 10 ward changes. I'm not saying I don't agree with your plan but as I'm just trying to set myself problems to solve and am not to be taken seriously.
For example, I'm currently working on North London am trying not to change any valid existing seat without a river crossing. It is fun!
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Sept 9, 2016 5:24:00 GMT
Electoral Calculus Initial Proposals Vote Projections Row 1 column 1 | Row 1 column 2 | Row 1 column 3 | Row 1 column 4 | Row 1 column 5 | Row 1 column 6 | Row 1 column 7 | Row 2 column 1 | Row 2 column 2 | Row 2 column 3 | Row 2 column 4 | Row 2 column 5 | Row 2 column 6 | Row 2 column 7 | Row 3 column 1 | Row 3 column 2 | Row 3 column 3 | Row 3 column 4 | Row 3 column 5 | Row 3 column 6 | Row 3 column 7 | Row 4 column 1 | Row 4 column 2 | Row 4 column 3 | Row 4 column 4 | Row 4 column 5 | Row 4 column 6 | Row 4 column 7 | Row 5 column 1 | Row 5 column 2 | Row 5 column 3 | Row 5 column 4 | Row 5 column 5 | Row 5 column 6 | Row 5 column 7 | Row 6 column 1 | Row 6 column 2 | Row 6 column 3 | Row 6 column 4 | Row 6 column 5 | Row 6 column 6 | Row 6 column 7 | Row 7 column 1 | Row 7 column 2 | Row 7 column 3 | Row 7 column 4 | Row 7 column 5 | Row 7 column 6 | Row 7 column 7 |
|
|
Chris
Independent
Posts: 573
|
Post by Chris on Sept 12, 2016 23:28:10 GMT
So the Boundary Commission did what I advised everyone not to do in Oxfordshire.. they split "rural" Ambrosden and Chesterton from Bicester, despite it containing a chunk of the town itself. It's an acceptable oversight if you don't go the extremes of looking at a map!
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,924
|
Post by mondialito on Sept 13, 2016 0:57:32 GMT
Blackbird Leys stays in Oxford East this time.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,924
|
Post by mondialito on Sept 13, 2016 0:59:15 GMT
And is it just me, or has Maidenhead remained unchanged?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 1:03:11 GMT
And is it just me, or has Maidenhead remained unchanged? No, it is exactly the same. Wonderful news for May.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,517
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Sept 13, 2016 1:07:19 GMT
Well, impossible as it would have seemed the Commission has made an even bigger hash of the Weald parts of Kent and East Sussex. Tonbridge and The Weald is a monstrosity (am awaiting carlton43 's outrage) but when compared to High Weald it's perfectly reasonable. It's as if 'oh it's all the Weald so that's ok'. Yeah, an area with shocking east-west links over heavily forested countryside with there being only one largish town shoved right on the far western edge. Fabulous...
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 13, 2016 2:01:40 GMT
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,517
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Sept 13, 2016 2:10:32 GMT
You're right, East Kent is lovely and makes an awful lot of sense. They obviously started there, then got bored and just put any old crap together for the rest of Kent and East Sussex. I've mentioned the High Weald nightmare but the Lewes and Uckfield seat is atrocious too. Coast to border with Kent and Surrey (this was tried last time too), you're having a laugh. If you're going to insist on Brighton taking Newhaven and Seaford then use that as your corner and push Lewes towards Hailsham and then pick up what you need to the north. It's also force a better solution for the cross border seat because it'd make the stupid rural Weald seat unviable.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 13, 2016 2:14:35 GMT
If that is an example of a good design, Woden protect us from a poor design. I was prepared for one rather difficult constituency to make the others good. Not 5-duff ones.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 13, 2016 2:25:49 GMT
My standards have dropped.
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Sept 13, 2016 9:18:33 GMT
Unconfirmed reports Nigel Farage is busy setting up a new campaign HQ and hiring staff in Thanet East.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 13, 2016 10:30:21 GMT
You're right, East Kent is lovely and makes an awful lot of sense. They obviously started there, then got bored and just put any old crap together for the rest of Kent and East Sussex. I've mentioned the High Weald nightmare but the Lewes and Uckfield seat is atrocious too. Coast to border with Kent and Surrey (this was tried last time too), you're having a laugh. If you're going to insist on Brighton taking Newhaven and Seaford then use that as your corner and push Lewes towards Hailsham and then pick up what you need to the north. It's also force a better solution for the cross border seat because it'd make the stupid rural Weald seat unviable. The Brighton and Hove seats also show the madness of not being willing to split wards. If you put Brighton & Hove with Newhaven and Seaford in full (which I suggested and was in favour of) then I fully thought that it would be neccessary to split a ward in Brighton - putting Woodingdean in a different seat to either Rottingdean or East Brighton (being the only 2 other Brighton wards it realistically connects to) never occurred to me. Some oddities in Hampshire as well - not sure why they put Nelson in Portsmouth South rather than the more obvious Baffins. Also don't understand the logic of taking 2 wards from Havant to bolster Portsmouth North rather than the 2 Portchester wards from Fareham. I suppose that the one thing that the proposed Test Valley seat has going for it is that it's better than Meon Valley.
|
|
Sharon
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 2,514
|
Post by Sharon on Sept 13, 2016 11:53:56 GMT
The 2 Southampton seats make sense - with their boundaries contiguous with the City Council boundary.
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 13, 2016 12:07:31 GMT
The 2 Southampton seats make sense - with their boundaries contiguous with the City Council boundary. Haven't calculated the exact numbers but looking at the wards, Itchen looks like it switches from conservative to labour, whereas Test becomes more marginal and possibly switches notionally from labour to conservative.
|
|
Sharon
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 2,514
|
Post by Sharon on Sept 13, 2016 13:09:57 GMT
The 2 Southampton seats make sense - with their boundaries contiguous with the City Council boundary. Haven't calculated the exact numbers but looking at the wards, Itchen looks like it switches from conservative to labour, whereas Test becomes more marginal and possibly switches notionally from labour to conservative. Based on this year's local elections, both seats would be Labour... Itchen: Labour 10,926, Conservative 8,210 Test: Labour 10,368, Conservatives 7,366
|
|