YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Mar 11, 2016 8:23:11 GMT
how likely is a crossover seat with notts? because Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Rutland can done without cutting up wards. I don't really know how the Commission will see things. As I said in the first post, if you treat Notts on its own and group Northants, Leics and Rutland, then in the latter group you need 17 seats but have under 16.5 quotas, so the area ends up over-represented (and because your average electorate needs to be low, it's also hard to draw good seats without going under the lower limit). If, however, there's a good way to do 17 seats in those counties the Commission might think it's worth doing it to keep Notts on its own. The other argument for the Rutland/Northants and Notts/Leics pairings is that very little change is actually needed in Leicestershire that way. I also think we now have a pretty good map for Rutland/Northants. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 11, 2016 11:27:00 GMT
So here's what my NOrthants plan from a couple of days ago (plus amendments suggested by YL ) looks on the new ward boundaries. I'm quite pleased with that actually  |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,843 
|
Post by myth11 on Mar 11, 2016 20:33:54 GMT
These seats may have been created by the beer i have been drinking 1. The Dukeries a good name for a safe labour  76215 Welbeck 1533 Worksop South 5132 Worksop North West 5300 Carlton 4437Worksop North East 4836Worksop North 6476Worksop East 4760Worksop South East 5087Blyth 1817Harworth 5726Langold 1910Ollerton 6303Boughton 2259Edwinstowe and Clipstone 7426Rainworth North and Rufford 4906Rainworth South and Blidworth 3852Farnsfield 2133Bilsthorpe 2322 2. Trent valley 74433 East Markham 1929Rampton 1595Tuxford and Trent 3395Sutton-on-Trent 2433Collingham 4262Muskham 2285Balderton North and Coddington 5015Beacon 5714Bridge 3953 Castle 2115 Devon 6061Trent 2263Balderton South 3663Sutton 1656Ranskill 1846Everton 1898Misterton 2008Beckingham 1863 Sturton 1816 Clayworth 1505 East Retford East 5273 East Retford South 3515East Retford West 3483East Retford North 4887 3. Hucknall 74438 Newstead Abbey 6362 Calverton 5712Bestwood St Albans 3852 Hucknall West 6931 Hucknall Central 5183 Hucknall North 7490 Hucknall South 5321 Dumbles 2294 Redhill 4695 Coppice 4501 Ernehale 4526 Plains 6454 Dover Beck 2357 Southwell 6542 Lowdham 2218 4. carlton 77455 Carlton Hill 5934 Cavendish 4082Phoenix 4131Gedling 4415Colwick 2015 Carlton 4072Netherfield 3867Sherwood 10020Mapperley 9964Dales 10035Porchester 6225 Woodthorpe 4379 Daybrook 4173 Trent Valley 4136 |
|
|
|
Post by krollo on Mar 22, 2016 20:04:08 GMT
Boring minimal-change Lincolnshire...
South Holland and the Deepings: unchanged (74332)
Boston and Skegness: gains Coningsby & Mareham (71910)
Louth and Horncastle: loses Coningsby & Mareham, gains Wragby and Bardney (72941)
Gainsborough: Loses Wragby and Bardney, gains Skellingthorpe (73166)
Lincoln: Loses Skellingthorpe, gains Waddington West, Heighington & Washingborough, Branston (75490)
Sleaford and North Hykeham: loses Waddington West, Heighington & Washingborough, Branston; gains Toller (78288)
Grantham and Stamford: Loses Toller (75154)
...making eight swaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 22, 2016 20:20:09 GMT
You can just leave Toller in Grantham and the numbers still work.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 23, 2016 14:06:44 GMT
Ah yes, but there may be a bit more to Lincolnshire than that ...
To make these numbers work, you've had to put Skellingthorpe, a Kesteven ward, into what is otherwise a Lindsey seat. There's a decent argument that it's better to leave it where it is, i.e. in the Lincoln seat, which can then be brought up to strength by gaining the 5 wards of N Hykeham (which is palpably part of Lincoln); and this in turn allows Lincoln to lose its current awkward Bracebridge Heath 'spur'. Lincoln 72002.
This means that Sleaford needs to take only the Viking and Loveden Heath wards of S Kesteven (74807), which has the merit of moving the boundary well away from the town of Grantham.
To keep Grantham and Stamford within the upper limit we switch the Deepings back into the seat and swap out the three wards of Bourne town and the three rural wards to the north of it: G&S 77919.
Bourne and the wards north of it go into a renamed South Holland & Bourne, which loses Donington &c ward: 75851.
Boston & Skegness gains Donington, which means its border with Louth & Horncastle can stay unchanged (except for a minor realignment for new ward boundaries): 71348
The currently orphaned Wragby ward switches to Louth and Horncastle: 76953.
Gainsborough is now coterminous with West Lindsey district: 72401.
|
|
|
|
Post by krollo on Mar 23, 2016 18:47:41 GMT
Ah yes, but there may be a bit more to Lincolnshire than that ... To make these numbers work, you've had to put Skellingthorpe, a Kesteven ward, into what is otherwise a Lindsey seat. There's a decent argument that it's better to leave it where it is, i.e. in the Lincoln seat, which can then be brought up to strength by gaining the 5 wards of N Hykeham (which is palpably part of Lincoln); and this in turn allows Lincoln to lose its current awkward Bracebridge Heath 'spur'. Lincoln 72002. This means that Sleaford needs to take only the Viking and Loveden Heath wards of S Kesteven (74807), which has the merit of moving the boundary well away from the town of Grantham. To keep Grantham and Stamford within the upper limit we switch the Deepings back into the seat and swap out the three wards of Bourne town and the three rural wards to the north of it: G&S 77919. Bourne and the wards north of it go into a renamed South Holland & Bourne, which loses Donington &c ward: 75851. Boston & Skegness gains Donington, which means its border with Louth & Horncastle can stay unchanged (except for a minor realignment for new ward boundaries): 71348 The currently orphaned Wragby ward switches to Louth and Horncastle: 76953. Gainsborough is now coterminous with West Lindsey district: 72401. I agree with much of what you say - I was merely trying to see what could be achieved with minimal change in its purest form. Clearly there's more desirable things to be done with Lincolnshire - a Lincoln/N. Hykeham merger seems all but inevitable, and making Gainsborough coterminous with West Lindsey has a certain appeal especially. I'm somewhat less sure with the best adjustments around the southern end of the county, but yours seem rather good (I never liked having the Deepings in with Spalding et al.) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 24, 2016 15:42:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 24, 2016 16:51:18 GMT
A cross-region pairing I assume?
12 seats for Northants + Warwickshire?
Either that or stick Corby with Scotland!
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 24, 2016 17:08:25 GMT
Nhants' entitlement is 6.60 so it has to be paired. A tempting idea would be to link it to Milton Keynes (2.27) = 8.87 = 9 seats.
This would leave the rest of Bucks with 4.90 = 5 seats.
But are regional boundaries not sacrosanct?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 24, 2016 17:54:49 GMT
But are regional boundaries not sacrosanct? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Mar 24, 2016 18:03:33 GMT
Nhants' entitlement is 6.60 so it has to be paired. A tempting idea would be to link it to Milton Keynes (2.27) = 8.87 = 9 seats. This would leave the rest of Bucks with 4.90 = 5 seats. But are regional boundaries not sacrosanct? I believe that they are not technically sacrosanct as far as the legislation is concerned - but that practically the Boundary Commission act as if they are. (I was wanting to cross-border Lymington / some of the New Forest West with Christchurch) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 24, 2016 20:40:30 GMT
I think I'm right in saying that until the last (abortive) review, the Commission did not use the regions at all as a basis for their deliberations. But, with the introduction of the 5% rule, and the end of the primacy of the county, the Commission decided to split its work into regions. This attitude, that the only borders that matter are the regions and the wards, is something I rail against, and refer to as "amorphous blobbism".
If the Commission were still doing their reviews county by county (which I think they should do, partly because it'd make it much easier for Joe Public to take in) it'd wouldn't be a huge problem to put e.g. Northants and Cambridgeshire together, and I wonder whether they might still consider it, since Northants is a reasonable fit for the Eastern England region.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 24, 2016 21:23:58 GMT
Indeed so, and the Eastern Region should also include Buckinghamshire due to its links with Hertfordshire (it has no significant connections with the rest of the South East region and is in fact north of London geographically). The Midlands should all just be one region (and include all of Lincolnshire as well). Or maybe Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Gloucestershire could all have a region to themselves, with other counties of the South West joining Hampshire to form 'Old Wessex' and Cornwall becomes a region in its own right, like the German-speaking area of Belgium.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 12, 2016 23:03:56 GMT
My proposals for Derbyshire:
1. High Peak. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 71,130.
2. Derby North. The Derby wards of Mickleover, Mackworth, Allestree, Darley, Derwent, Oakwood, and Chaddesden. Electorate: 71,267.
3. Derby South. The Derby wards of Alvaston, Arboretum, Abbey, Normanton, Sinfin, Bargreaves, Littleover, and Spondon. Electorate: 78,227.
4. South Derbyshire. As the current South Derbyshire minus the wards of Hilton, Hatton, Ettwall, Willingdon & Findern, but plus the Derby wards of Chellaston and Boulton. Electorate: 76,388.
5. Ilkeston. As the current Erewash constituency plus Ockbrook & Borrowash ward. Name changed since this constituency is not entirely coterminous with the Erewash district. Electorate: 75,973.
6. Clay Cross & Dromfield. All of the North East Derbyshire district; name changed since the north-east compass point of Derbyshire is actually covered by Bolsover. Electorate: 77,256.
7. West Derbyshire. As the current Derbyshire Dales constituency plus the South Derbyshire wards of Hilton, Hatton, Ettwall, and Willingdon & Findern. Electorate: 77,313.
8. Bolsover. The entire district of Bolsover, plus the Chesterfield ward of Lowgates & Woodthorpe, plus the Amber Valley wards of Alfreton, Somercotes, Swanwick, and Ironville & Riddings. Electorate: 78,209.
9. Chesterfield. As the current Chesterfield constituency plus the ward of Barrow Hill & New Wittington. Electorate: 75,675.
10. Belper. The Erewash wards of West Hallam and Little Eaton & Stanley, plus all Amber Valley wards not included in either the West Derbyshire constituency or the Bolsover constituency (i.e. Belper itself and surrounding villages). Electorate: 75,342.
Mid Derbyshire constituency disappears completely in these proposals. Belper is a 'new' constituency containing large parts of Mid Derbyshire and Amber Valley. It is possible, contrary to earlier predictions, to keep Derby in a north-south split as has been the case since 1950.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2016 16:23:31 GMT
This is just a quick note to congratulate greenhert on his Derbyshire map - better than the others I've seen (including mine). Among its many merits, a viable north-south split in Derby is something I struggled in vain to find.
I might query a couple of names. I agree that 'Ilkeston' is much better than 'Erewash' (rivers are important features of our landscape, but they do not require representation in Parliament). But Belper is not an especially big place, not is it very central in its proposed seat; I know it has been used as a constituency name, but I'd suggest 'East Derbyshire'. And personally, I'd allow 'North East Derbyshire' to survive on the grounds that history is on its side even if geography isn't.
But the boundaries are fine, and that's what matters.
With your permission, greenhert, I propose to steal your scheme immediately.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 13, 2016 18:27:31 GMT
That does indeed look like a good map. On the names...
I suspect that if the BCE adopt that Belper seat, they might well stick with either "Mid Derbyshire" or "Amber Valley". I think "Belper" or "Belper & Heanor" would give a better idea of where it is, though.
As for "North East Derbyshire", yes it doesn't really make sense as a name if you look at a map, but (a) it's been like that for ages, (b) it's the name of the district, and (c) people in the area do actually identify with it. So I don't see much chance of getting it changed.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 13, 2016 21:10:03 GMT
An outstanding effort by greenhert , admittedly in a county I don't know particularly well (I spent a week in youth hostel with my school there two decades ago, and went through it on the train in November 2013). That said, Belper is clearly by far the most suitable name for that proposed seat. The populated parts of High Peak could almost be called 'Far Outer Greater Manchester', though. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 13, 2016 21:16:47 GMT
An outstanding effort by greenhert , admittedly in a county I don't know particularly well (I spent a week in youth hostel with my school there two decades ago, and went through it on the train in November 2013). That said, Belper is clearly by far the most suitable name for that proposed seat. The populated parts of High Peak could almost be called 'Far Outer Greater Manchester', though. On that note, in the early 1970s when there was a major review of local government (culminating in the LGA 1972), there was once a plan to include the town of Glossop (which is in High Peak) and surrounding villages in the Greater Manchester borough of Tameside. Thankfully, this was not carried forward in the end. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 13, 2016 21:32:00 GMT
I would tend to agree that it was fortunate for Glossop to dodge that bullet in the 1970s, except that now the town is not going to get a vote on the new 'metro Mayor' next year despite being part (well, on the eastern edge) of the Greater Manchester transport network.
|
|
76215 
