|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 15, 2016 9:32:10 GMT
Something like this ? Seems to work quite well  I like that a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 15, 2016 11:38:58 GMT
Something like this ? Seems to work quite well I like that a lot. I've made some minor modifications for your delectation   |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 15, 2016 12:13:34 GMT
So this is how I did it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Apr 15, 2016 12:20:26 GMT
So this is how I did it. You appear to have split St Jude ward, but putting the Solent Forts in Fareham.  |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 15, 2016 12:27:08 GMT
So this is how I did it. You appear to have split St Jude ward, but putting the Solent Forts in Fareham. That's reasonable, as Palmerston Forts, they clearly go best with Fort Southwick on the top of Portsdown Hill... |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Apr 15, 2016 12:39:53 GMT
You appear to have split St Jude ward, but putting the Solent Forts in Fareham. That's reasonable, as Palmerston Forts, they clearly go best with Fort Southwick on the top of Portsdown Hill... Connected by secret tunnels, so not non-contiguous after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 15, 2016 12:54:11 GMT
I've made some minor modifications for your delectation Never before have I been ribbed through the medium of psephological cartography. Top marks. |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 15, 2016 13:04:05 GMT
So this is how I did it. For completion - here is what I currently have for the rest of Hampshire... although I am far from convinced about either my Winchester seat or my Andover seat for obvious reasons. The fundamental problem is that Basingstoke + Deane, Andover + the northern half of Test Valley, and Winchester City and the northern half of Winchester District are good for 3 seats between them, but Basingstoke is too big and so can't take any of its natural hinterland (ie 'Deane'), with the other 2 being too small.   |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Apr 15, 2016 13:53:16 GMT
Solution might be a Basingstoke donut (Basingstoke Outer) or a Reading-like East/West pair of seats. It is almost inevitable that the soulless Basingstoke will end up divided in two anyway. Railway could be the dividing line.
Tadley is a very circuitous and long drive from Andover no matter which way you try to get there.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 15, 2016 14:40:38 GMT
Why are people concerned about the journey from one part of the constituency to another and which road or the degree of difficulty? Why would that be of any moment at all? The constituents ought perhaps to have a common identity of interest as in supporting Kent County Cricket, working in Maidstone, being mainly agricultural/commuters/military.........but perhaps no? The one thing constituents will not ever give a thought to is 'can I easily get to all parts of the constituency by road and can I be assured I don't have to pass through a alien constituency to get there'. No one will ever have such thought. We mainly go to very few places in our patch unless we are a district nurse, policeman, play for a team or a quiz league.........and then we are concerned about the job, the result or the beer, not how we got there or where we passed through.
I live in the largest constituency at Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I can see the north end of Skye as I type this, it is not far away; yet it would be a two and a half hour drive of over 100-miles to get there. Most of us would never do it in our lives. Fort William is in the terms of most of you about 4-constituencies away and no one would ever go there unless having a family connection. A very difficult and time-consuming journey. Yet all parts of the constituency have a great deal of similarity in housing, outlook, income and wishes. That is what is important not 'can I drive there easily from Edenbridge!'
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Apr 15, 2016 20:32:21 GMT
I'm surprised so many plans are continuing to want to split Waterlooville unnecessarily rather that put the coherant community of Portchester in with Portsmouth North. If you want seats that reflect communities, continuing to split off the south of Winchester district from the city itself is the way to go. Along with Test Valley, Winchester district council is the most incoherant council area in Hampshire. It shouldn't be regarded as something to preserve in parliamentary boundaries, especially in the south of it's area. And Winchester constituency is the most versatile constituency in England (to never change its name). Someone ought to make a gif sometime. Maldon would give it a run for its money |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 15, 2016 20:52:32 GMT
And Winchester constituency is the most versatile constituency in England (to never change its name). Someone ought to make a gif sometime. Maldon would give it a run for its money Except Maldon changed name depending on what it was yoked with, whereas Winchester hasn't ever been 'Winchester & Chandlers Ford' |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 16, 2016 5:52:44 GMT
I don't know how you figure that out. It's only since 1983 that it's included areas outside the city and then only a few areas to the south, which haven't varied very much. Aylesbury is a possible contender as is Wokingham
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 8:08:31 GMT
Newcastle North. I win.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 16, 2016 9:09:46 GMT
 Hmmmm... (and until 1918, Winchester still had an MP of its very own.) though the only reason Aylesbury didn't move quite *that* much is that the eastern and western county boundaries are too near. It's almost as crazy (and of course for the same reason - we had this discussion about how "Mid County X" really means "whatever didn't fit elsewhere" recently - Hampshire and Buckinghamshire just have fancy names for that seat.) |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 16, 2016 11:21:28 GMT
I don't know how you figure that out. It's only since 1983 that it's included areas outside the city and then only a few areas to the south, which haven't varied very much. Aylesbury is a possible contender as is Wokingham Pete I was misled by a rather ambiguous post and had not read back. Of course on here everyone knows Lincoln has the longest history and that the point here is an entirely different one!!! Post deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 16, 2016 14:32:24 GMT
Hmmmm... (and until 1918, Winchester still had an MP of its very own.) though the only reason Aylesbury didn't move quite *that* much is that the eastern and western county boundaries are too near. It's almost as crazy (and of course for the same reason - we had this discussion about how "Mid County X" really means "whatever didn't fit elsewhere" recently - Hampshire and Buckinghamshire just have fancy names for that seat.) Minion - That is a great series of maps. Apart from the evolution of Winchester, it's also fascinating to see the way Basingstoke started out in a vast constituency covering much of north Hampshire; but over time, as the population has grown, the boundaries have steadily closed in on the town itself. May I ask where you sourced these maps? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 16, 2016 14:49:02 GMT
These maps are snipped from David Boothroyd's old national maps (except the 2010 one, which is snipped from one I found on wikipedia).
|
|
|
|
Post by akmd on Apr 17, 2016 14:18:11 GMT
Boundary changes were featured on today's edition of Sunday Politics for the South East and suggested that the Conservatives would win all 3 seats covering the Brighton & Hove area should the recommendations be implemented. I can't see how they worked that out. I suppose Hove could be paired with Shoreham as Pete suggested when he posted his boundaries for Kent & Sussex recently but a seat focused on central Brighton would be very difficult for the Tories to win now. Unless they think a large chunk of the villages in the South Downs to the north are going to be added to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 18, 2016 9:37:31 GMT
I mentioned it previously, but I have now done the maps for my suggested West Sussex. Not minimum change, but splitting and reorganising Chichester, Arundel and the South Downs, and Sussex Mid. Basic premise is that through West Sussex the South Downs provides a pretty strong natural boundary that would be better if not crossed. Also, East Grinstead goes better with Horsham than Haywards Heath and this means that you can include the Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath hinterland in their own seat. Edit: Also have a particularly Doktorbian name for what would otherwise be a horrifically generic 'West Sussex North-West' or 'South Downs North-facing'   |
|
