2018 Review - South East England

[greenhert]

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.

[greenhert]

My proposals for Buckinghamshire. The major problem is the awkward size of the Milton Keynes wards, although I found a way to avoid splitting Bletchley in this case.

1. Milton Keynes Pagnell. The Milton Keynes wards of Olney, Newport Pagnell North & Hanslope, Newport Pagnell South, Central Milton Keynes, Broughton, Monkston, Danesborough & Walton, Woughton & Fishermead, and Campbell Park & Old Woughton. Electorate: 78,294.
2. Milton Keynes Bletchley. The Milton Keynes wards of Bletchley East/Park/West, Wolverton, Stantonbury, Bradwell, Loughton & Shenley, and Shenley Brook End. Electorate: 76,858.
3. Buckingham. As the current Buckingham constituency minus the Aylesbury Vale wards of Wing, Wingrave, Pitstone & Cheddington and Edlesborough, but plus the Milton Keynes wards of Stony Stratford and Tattenhoe and the Wycombe wards of Icknield & The Risboroughs. Electorate: 74,596.
4. Aylesbury. All Aylesbury Vale wards not in the Buckingham constituency; this version of Aylesbury contains no Wycombe wards. Electorate: 77,715.
5. Chesham & Amersham. As the current Chesham & Amersham constituency plus both Hazlemere wards of Wycombe. Electorate: 75,711.
6. Beaconsfield. As the current Beaconsfield constituency plus Great Marlow ward (to unite it with the town of Marlow). Electorate: 77,754.
7. Wycombe. All wards of Wycombe not in the constituencies of Buckingham, Chesham & Amersham, or Beaconsfield. Electorate: 75,606.

[greenhert]

My revised and finalised proposals for Oxfordshire.

1. Oxford (75,837). All Oxford wards except for Quarry & Risinghurst, Barton & Sandhills, and Headington (these three wards comprise the Headington suburb).
2. Witney (77,776). Loses Chipping Norton area, and gains Kidlington North, Kidlington South, Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton, and Kirtlington wards in Cherwell, giving it similar boundaries to the Witney constituency of 1983-97.
3. Banbury (75,505). Loses Bicester wards, gains Chipping Norton and surrounding area restoring Banbury to pre-1997 boundaries.
4. Abingdon & Wantage (76,906). Loses all Oxford wards (since Abingdon has no real connection with Oxford, having once been the county town of Berkshire), and gains Wantage's wards.
5. Henley & Didcot (78,484). As the current Wantage constituency minus the actual town of Wantage, but plus the Henley part of the current Henley constituency.
6. Bicester, Thame & Headington (76,826). The Bicester part of the current Banbury constituency, the Thame part of the current Henley constituency, plus the Oxford wards of Quarry & Risinghurst, Barton & Sandhills, and Headington.

[lennon]

To go with the West Sussex that I presented earlier, I have now completed a combined Kent and East Sussex.

East Sussex - I really dislike splitting Seaford as others have done, and would rather split one of the excessively large Brighton wards - in this case Queens' Park - roughly in half. Other than that Eastbourne and Hastings and Rye are unchanged, Lewes takes the bottom half of the current Wealden in compensation for Newhaven / Seaford. The upper part of Wealden takes 4 wards from Sevenoaks (Edenbridge). There is then another Cross-border Seat with Battle and Bexhill taking Tenterden from Ashford and Hawkhurst + Cranbrook from the very bottom of the Tunbridge Wells Local Authority



Kent - East - Folkestone become Shepway district, Ashford simply takes that part of the Ashford district remaining (which is then more centrally focused on Ashford itself). Dover is unchanged as is Sittingbourne and Sheppey. I then combine Faversham with Whitstable and Herne Bay, Canterbury with Westgate and am left with a tight Margate and Ramsgate combined.



Kent - West - Dartford is the district, Gravesend simply takes 1 ward from Sevenoaks. I have a tight Tunbridge and Tonbridge seat, a tight Maidstone seat, Gillingham takes River ward from Rochester, I treat the Medway as a solid boundary all the way around and so have a 'Hoo and Aylesford' seat as well as a compact Chatham seat. I am then left with Mid Kent or 'Maidstone and Malling Surrounds' which does at least seem reasonably Maidstone oriented despite being somewhat sprawling

[Deleted]

Loving your names

[minionofmidas]

Mar 23, 2016 20:02:33 GMT Khunanup said:

Mar 23, 2016 18:52:42 GMT krollo said:

Being but a Northerner, how pitchforky would a Tonbridge and Tunbridge seat be?

Only if you call it High Brooms...

"The T[x]nbridges"?

[YL]

Apr 18, 2016 22:20:24 GMT greenhert said:

My proposals for Oxfordshire.

1. Oxford. All Oxford wards except for Littlemore, Marston, and Quarry & Risinghurst (none of these wards were in the city of Oxford's boundaries until the 1990s). Electorate: 75,757.
2. Witney. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 78,455.
3. Banbury. As the current Banbury constituency minus the wards of Launton, Ambrosden & Chesterton, and Fringford. Electorate: 78,250.
4. Abingdon. The Cherwell wards of Kidlington North/South, Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton, Kirtlington, Otmoor, Launton, Ambrosden & Chesterton, and Fringford, and the Vale of White Horse wards of Abingdon (all), Thames, Kingston Bagpuize, Marcham, Cumnor, Botley & Sunningwell, Wootton, and Kennington & Radley. Electorate: 73,141.
5. Didcot & Wantage. As the current Wantage constituency minus Thames, Kingston Bagpuize, and Marcham wards, but plus the South Oxfordshire ward of Benson & Crowmarsh. ELectorate: 74,319.
6. Henley. All South Oxfordshire wards not in Didcot & Wantage, plus the Oxford wards of Littlemore, Marston, and Quarry & Risinghurst. Electorate: 76,325.

Sorry, but your Didcot & Wantage actually has an electorate of 79,406. It looks like you omitted Watchfield & Shrivenham ward.

[greenhert]

May 29, 2016 7:25:50 GMT YL said:

Apr 18, 2016 22:20:24 GMT greenhert said:

My proposals for Oxfordshire.

1. Oxford. All Oxford wards except for Littlemore, Marston, and Quarry & Risinghurst (none of these wards were in the city of Oxford's boundaries until the 1990s). Electorate: 75,757.
2. Witney. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 78,455.
3. Banbury. As the current Banbury constituency minus the wards of Launton, Ambrosden & Chesterton, and Fringford. Electorate: 78,250.
4. Abingdon. The Cherwell wards of Kidlington North/South, Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton, Kirtlington, Otmoor, Launton, Ambrosden & Chesterton, and Fringford, and the Vale of White Horse wards of Abingdon (all), Thames, Kingston Bagpuize, Marcham, Cumnor, Botley & Sunningwell, Wootton, and Kennington & Radley. Electorate: 73,141.
5. Didcot & Wantage. As the current Wantage constituency minus Thames, Kingston Bagpuize, and Marcham wards, but plus the South Oxfordshire ward of Benson & Crowmarsh. ELectorate: 74,319.
6. Henley. All South Oxfordshire wards not in Didcot & Wantage, plus the Oxford wards of Littlemore, Marston, and Quarry & Risinghurst. Electorate: 76,325.

Sorry, but your Didcot & Wantage actually has an electorate of 79,406. It looks like you omitted Watchfield & Shrivenham ward.

Oops...I can just add Faringdon ward to Abingdon to increase its electorate to 78,503 (just 4 electors below the upper limit!) and decrease Didcot & Wantage's electorate to 74,044 and thus within quota. The main issue with redrawing the rural Oxfordshire constituencies lies with the current Banbury constituency being almost 7,000 voters above the upper limit...

[Adrian]

May 29, 2016 11:29:17 GMT greenhert said:

May 29, 2016 7:25:50 GMT YL said:

Sorry, but your Didcot & Wantage actually has an electorate of 79,406. It looks like you omitted Watchfield & Shrivenham ward.

Oops...I can just add Faringdon ward to Abingdon to increase its electorate to 78,503 (just 4 electors below the upper limit!) and decrease Didcot & Wantage's electorate to 74,044 and thus within quota. The main issue with redrawing the rural Oxfordshire constituencies lies with the current Banbury constituency being almost 7,000 voters above the upper limit...

I've mapped this.

I quibble wih your choice of Oxford wards - the Headington area has been part of Oxford since the 1930's, not the 1990's, and I think it's better to keep the area together in one seat. Also, it seems from my attempts that taking wards from east or south Oxford runs into difficulties. Either you end up with a problem finding a seat for Didcot or Wantage to go in, or you end up with an, ahem, creative solution like your Abingdon seat. I think someone living in Finmere would certainly be bemused.

[greenhert]

Adrian, I was not cutting out Headington but Quarry & Risinghurst; Risinghurst was the area added to Oxford in the 1990s.

The Boundary Commission would probably only approve a minimum change plan in any case, and as for traditional county boundaries, there is no way of repatriating Abingdon, Didcot, and Wantage back to Berkshire in constituency terms under the current electoral parameters.

A minimum/near-minimum change plan would probably look like this:

1. Witney (78,455). Unchanged.
2. Oxford (76,194). Adds North and St Margaret's wards; the only Oxford wards missing are Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote.
3. Abingdon & Oxford North (76,544). Loses North and St Margaret's wards in Oxford, gains the Cherwell ward of Kirtlington, and gains the Vale of White Horse wards of Kingston Bagpuize, Marcham, and Thames.
4. Banbury (78,250). Loses Ambrosden & Chesteron, Fringford, and Launton wards from its boundaries.
5. Wantage (73,690). Loses Marcham, Thames, and Kingston Bagpuize wards.
6. Henley (78,201). Loses Kirtlington ward, gains Ambrosden & Chesterton, Fringford, and Launton wards from the Banbury constituency.

[Adrian]

May 29, 2016 16:26:26 GMT greenhert said:

Adrian , I was not cutting out Headington but Quarry & Risinghurst; Risinghurst was the area added to Oxford in the 1990s.

Well, four or five streets. Most of the ward is part of Headington.

[Adrian]

An experimental Surrey

[finsobruce]

May 29, 2016 20:13:57 GMT Adrian said:

An experimental Surrey

Not a phrase that has been seen much since about 1969 I suspect...

[Foggy]

Rename SW Surrey to 'Godalming and Farnham' and I'm sold. 'Egham and Staines' sounds so much more accurate than Spelthorne. 'Crouch Oak' is particularly inspired.

[Adrian]

Berkshire

[YL]

May 29, 2016 16:26:26 GMT greenhert said:

Adrian, I was not cutting out Headington but Quarry & Risinghurst; Risinghurst was the area added to Oxford in the 1990s.

The Boundary Commission would probably only approve a minimum change plan in any case, and as for traditional county boundaries, there is no way of repatriating Abingdon, Didcot, and Wantage back to Berkshire in constituency terms under the current electoral parameters.

A minimum/near-minimum change plan would probably look like this:

1. Witney (78,455). Unchanged.
2. Oxford (76,194). Adds North and St Margaret's wards; the only Oxford wards missing are Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote.
3. Abingdon & Oxford North (76,544). Loses North and St Margaret's wards in Oxford, gains the Cherwell ward of Kirtlington, and gains the Vale of White Horse wards of Kingston Bagpuize, Marcham, and Thames.
4. Banbury (78,250). Loses Ambrosden & Chesteron, Fringford, and Launton wards from its boundaries.
5. Wantage (73,690). Loses Marcham, Thames, and Kingston Bagpuize wards.
6. Henley (78,201). Loses Kirtlington ward, gains Ambrosden & Chesterton, Fringford, and Launton wards from the Banbury constituency.

The problem with this approach is that, as discussed above, the Ambrosden & Chesterton ward contains areas which are now part of Bicester (both practically and officially -- the town council boundary has been expanded to include them) and so should really be kept with the town. The same is true of Caversfield, and if those two stay with Bicester it's hard for Fringford and Launton not to do so too. Given that, I think there's a pretty strong case for abandoning minimum change in Oxfordshire and splitting Bicester off from Banbury, as various plans posted earlier in the thread did.

[greenhert]

May 30, 2016 7:49:39 GMT YL said:

May 29, 2016 16:26:26 GMT greenhert said:

Adrian , I was not cutting out Headington but Quarry & Risinghurst; Risinghurst was the area added to Oxford in the 1990s.

The Boundary Commission would probably only approve a minimum change plan in any case, and as for traditional county boundaries, there is no way of repatriating Abingdon, Didcot, and Wantage back to Berkshire in constituency terms under the current electoral parameters.

A minimum/near-minimum change plan would probably look like this:

1. Witney (78,455). Unchanged.
2. Oxford (76,194). Adds North and St Margaret's wards; the only Oxford wards missing are Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote.
3. Abingdon & Oxford North (76,544). Loses North and St Margaret's wards in Oxford, gains the Cherwell ward of Kirtlington, and gains the Vale of White Horse wards of Kingston Bagpuize, Marcham, and Thames.
4. Banbury (78,250). Loses Ambrosden & Chesteron, Fringford, and Launton wards from its boundaries.
5. Wantage (73,690). Loses Marcham, Thames, and Kingston Bagpuize wards.
6. Henley (78,201). Loses Kirtlington ward, gains Ambrosden & Chesterton, Fringford, and Launton wards from the Banbury constituency.

The problem with this approach is that, as discussed above, the Ambrosden & Chesterton ward contains areas which are now part of Bicester (both practically and officially -- the town council boundary has been expanded to include them) and so should really be kept with the town. The same is true of Caversfield, and if those two stay with Bicester it's hard for Fringford and Launton not to do so too. Given that, I think there's a pretty strong case for abandoning minimum change in Oxfordshire and splitting Bicester off from Banbury, as various plans posted earlier in the thread did.

YL, I only removed those wards from Banbury in my plan to make it compliant with the narrow electoral parameters, and not for any other reason. I understand your point, but this approach creates problems of its own due to Bicester's size. You would have to break up Witney completely and this has knock on effects on everything else in Oxfordshire except the expanded Oxford East. I think such a plan which involved splitting Banbury from Bicester would look something like this:

1. Banbury (77,739): Loses Bicester and surrounding wards, gains Chipping Norton, Woodstock and surrounding villages. NB: Chipping Norton and Woodstock were in the Banbury constituency from 1918 to 1983.

2. Bicester & Thame (75,959): All of Cherwell not included in Banbury (takes in Kidlington from Oxford West & Abingdon), and also Thame and the surrounding villages in South Oxfordshire

3. Witney (75,637). Loses Chipping Norton and Woodstock area, gains Faringdon and Sparsholt area from the Vale of White Horse.

4. Abingdon, Wantage, and Oxford North (77,832). The Oxford wards of Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote, and the eastern part of the Vale of White Horse including Abingdon and Wantage themselves.

5. Didcot & Henley (77,973). The southern part of South Oxfordshire including the towns of Didcot, Henley, and Wallingford, and the Vale of White Horse ward of Blewbury & Harwell.

6. Oxford (76,194). All Oxford wards except for Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote.

Quite a mess, to be honest.

[YL]

May 30, 2016 9:46:09 GMT greenhert said:

YL , I only removed those wards from Banbury in my plan to make it compliant with the narrow electoral parameters, and not for any other reason. I understand your point, but this approach creates problems of its own due to Bicester's size. You would have to break up Witney completely and this has knock on effects on everything else in Oxfordshire except the expanded Oxford East. I think such a plan which involved splitting Banbury from Bicester would look something like this:

1. Banbury (77,739): Loses Bicester and surrounding wards, gains Chipping Norton, Woodstock and surrounding villages. NB: Chipping Norton and Woodstock were in the Banbury constituency from 1918 to 1983.

2. Bicester & Thame (75,959): All of Cherwell not included in Banbury (takes in Kidlington from Oxford West & Abingdon), and also Thame and the surrounding villages in South Oxfordshire

3. Witney (75,637). Loses Chipping Norton and Woodstock area, gains Faringdon and Sparsholt area from the Vale of White Horse.

4. Abingdon, Wantage, and Oxford North (77,832). The Oxford wards of Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote, and the eastern part of the Vale of White Horse including Abingdon and Wantage themselves.

5. Didcot & Henley (77,973). The southern part of South Oxfordshire including the towns of Didcot, Henley, and Wallingford, and the Vale of White Horse ward of Blewbury & Harwell.

6. Oxford (76,194). All Oxford wards except for Jericho & Osney, Summertown, and Wolvercote.

Quite a mess, to be honest.

It's pretty much the same as the map Chris posted earlier in the thread.

If you're going to create a seat based on Bicester and including all the surrounding wards, it seems to me that you basically have three places to look for extra electorate, namely the Kidlington area, the Thame area, and parts of Oxford, and you need to include two of those. That gives three basic options, each of which has various further possibilities, including which Oxford wards you take.

Option 1: Bicester goes with Thame and Kidlington, as above. Then, to make up for lost territory, Banbury has to expand into West Oxfordshire and Henley needs to expand westwards, presumably taking in Didcot. That means the parts of Oxford not in the main city seat go with places to the west, as now.

Option 2: Bicester goes with Thame and part of Oxford. This almost allows two seats out of West Oxfordshire and the Banbury and Kidlington areas of Cherwell district, but the numbers in the rest of the county don't quite work that way, so it looks like the Witney seat needs to either grab Wolvercote ward from Oxford, or cross the Thames to take a single Vale of White Horse ward. This is essentially Pete Whitehead 's plan from this post.

Option 3: Bicester goes with Kidlington and part of Oxford. So Thame stays with Henley, and again Banbury has to expand into West Oxfordshire, which I find works best if Woodstock joins the Bicester seat. Witney has to cross the Thames. I keep running into a really ugly boundary around Didcot with this option.

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

[Adrian]

I think the big battle will be whether to split West Oxfordshire or not. Originally I wanted to keep it intact, but the argument against (i.e. that it murders the Bicester area) are pretty sound. If it is kept, I imagine a plan like Lennon's from the early days of this thread, pictured here: vote-2012.proboards.com/post/334145

I think whether or not West Oxon is split, the main factors that'll be accepted as part of a good plan are: 1. Don't split the Vale of White Horse proper and 2. Remove only North Oxford wards from the city.

Chris (see vote-2012.proboards.com/post/334058 ) came up with the clever idea of Banbury-Kidlington, which prevents Bicester being split, but his plan did split the Vale, and I can't find a sensible way of avoiding this.

[Adrian]

Here's my take on Chris's Banbury-Kidlington plan. Steventon needs to be added to the Henley seat to make the numbers work.

The Vale of White Horse is dealt with differently from the current arrangement, but I think it's probably acceptable.

Around Bicester, Middleton Stoney and Caversfield could be exchanged between the seats to improve them.