Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 19, 2016 23:38:55 GMT
Some very odd boundaries there. With all that space, what the hell is going on around Fort William for example?! Split wards! Looks like they are using pre-review wards as base data as required, but have "split" them to align with new wards. Which is just bonkers. They've split Caol & Mallaig but not (as they've done elsewhere) to keep the Fort William 'urban area' together but instead to put an area that's remote no matter which constituency it's in. Very, very odd. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122 
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 19, 2016 23:40:07 GMT
Some very odd boundaries there. With all that space, what the hell is going on around Fort William for example?! Fort William is tricky. Once you decide to link Lochaber to Argyll and Bute there just isn't quite enough electorate to put all of FW in one constituency. Though I see they have put Caol in the ABL one and made the boundary the Caledonian Canal with Corpach in Inverness and Skye. It's probably reasonable but Inverie definitely needs to move into ABL. |
|
bore
Labour
Posts: 55
|
Post by bore on Oct 20, 2016 0:26:01 GMT
So Edinburgh West is almost gerrymandered for the Liberal Democrats. If these boundaries stick I think that it's very possible that Edinburgh will have 2 unionist MP's in 2020 (with tactical voting in mind there's a very decent chance that the proposed Edinburgh South constituency would go Labour in 2020 if it were left untouched). Actually I'd go as far to say that, barring an all bets are off Tory 10-15 point win situation Edinburgh South is very very likely to be held by Murray. The boundary changes have substantially weakened the SNP because areas like the Inch, Burdiehouse, Gracemount, Moredun where the SNP did better in than Murray in 2015 are gone. The tories are very likely in a stronger position, but not by that much, with the addition of places like Bonaly and Colinton and the New Town, but the loss of the Grange. And labour probably go down a wee bit but not a huge amount. Tollcross plus what looks like a large chunk of Fountainbridge probably more than cancels out Newington, Oxgangs is swing Labour/SNP and so on. The thing which people don't get about this seat is firstly tenements, while taking up roughly the same amount of space as villas, have far more people in them, so count much more. So Morningside has this undeserved reputation of being entirely elderly middle class English people, when in terms of population they would be a pretty small minority. The other thing is this whole seat is very studenty and only getting more so (there has been an explosion of student housing in the last few years), and the boundaries change if anything make it more studenty, which, given where the students are coming from, probably helps labour against both the snp and the tories. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 20, 2016 1:20:14 GMT
Do we have a high quality map yet?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Oct 20, 2016 6:55:46 GMT
Some very odd boundaries there. With all that space, what the hell is going on around Fort William for example?! Fort William is tricky. Once you decide to link Lochaber to Argyll and Bute there just isn't quite enough electorate to put all of FW in one constituency. Though I see they have put Caol in the ABL one and made the boundary the Caledonian Canal with Corpach in Inverness and Skye. It's probably reasonable but Inverie definitely needs to move into ABL. Do we have more detailed electorate figures somewhere? Otherwise it's difficult to see whether there's a different way of splitting up the two Lochaber wards which doesn't split the Fort William urban area. Both seats are fairly close to the upper limit so it's going to be quite finely tuned, though not so much so that Knoydart can't move, and as you say it ought to go with Mallaig. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2016 7:25:41 GMT
Do we have a high quality map yet? ASV - Look in the consultation portal for better-quality maps. I've just voted 'OK', very much on the basis of a first look (so I reserve my right to change my vote after closer scrutiny). Overall, it doesn't seem too bad, considering what I was expecting from the BCS, and it's definitely an improvement on the zombie. On the other hand, as predicted, the BCS has resolved the dilemma of whether to split wards or towns by the simple expedient of splitting both. I put up a plan that split no wards at all and had no three-area seats, but I fessed up to splitting nine towns (and Adrian blazed me for it). The BCS scheme also has no three-area seats but despite splitting numerous wards has still split several towns - Motherwell has suffered especially badly, but Airdrie, Bearsden, Hamilton, Renfrew and Stirling have all got the treatment. Oh yes, and I see they've gone for exactly the same Bellshill split that Adrian gave me such a hard time about. So, which is preferable? Seven town splits and countless ward splits? Or nine town splits and no ward splits at all? Edited to add: I am giving BCS the benefit of the doubt and assuming that dividing Banavie from Caol doesn't count as a town split. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 20, 2016 7:42:56 GMT
Oh look. Lanarkshire get's shafted again to keep Airdrie and Coatbridge apart. Hamilton/Wishaw is just awful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 8:03:33 GMT
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 20, 2016 8:11:15 GMT
Fort William is tricky. Once you decide to link Lochaber to Argyll and Bute there just isn't quite enough electorate to put all of FW in one constituency. Though I see they have put Caol in the ABL one and made the boundary the Caledonian Canal with Corpach in Inverness and Skye. It's probably reasonable but Inverie definitely needs to move into ABL. Do we have more detailed electorate figures somewhere? Otherwise it's difficult to see whether there's a different way of splitting up the two Lochaber wards which doesn't split the Fort William urban area. Both seats are fairly close to the upper limit so it's going to be quite finely tuned, though not so much so that Knoydart can't move, and as you say it ought to go with Mallaig. The electorate if you include all of Caol and Mallaig ward is 80,549 so you need to lose at least 2042 voters from Caol and Mallaig ward to make it compliant. If you look at Highland Councils detailed ward maps with polling districts here: www.highland.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/5072/detailed_map_of_ward_12_-_caol_and_mallaig.pdfSo in the NE of the ward the obvious districts (and numbers of electors) to include in Inverness and Skye are: I12B Aberchalder 31 I12A Laggan 3 R12J Glengarry 312 R12I Achnacarry 93 R12K Spean Bridge 679 R12L Roy Bridge 442 But they only add up to 1,560 so you need at least another 500 electors taken out of the ward. The remaining rural polling districts are: R12D Mallaig 668 R12C Morar 239 R12B Arisaig 352 R12A Glenfinnan 105 R12F Small Isles 124 R12E Inverie 78 R12G Kinlocheil 94 And the Fort William districts are: R12M Caol 2407 R12H Corpach 1308 So either you include both the Fort William districts in ABL and some or all of the rural districts in Inverness and Skye or (as the Commission propose) you put most of the rural districts in ABL but include 1 of the Fort William districts in Inverness and Skye. Either way you end up with a non contiguous constituency. The commission proposal has Ardour and Mallaig accessible only by the Corran Ferry or driving through Inverness and Skye. The alternative would have Mallaig physically attached to Inverness and Skye but with road access only possible through Argyll, Bute and Lochaber. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 8:25:21 GMT
I've voted good on the basis that I'm still in North East Fife. The thing which people don't get about this seat is firstly tenements, while taking up roughly the same amount of space as villas, have far more people in them, so count much more. So Morningside has this undeserved reputation of being entirely elderly middle class English people, when in terms of population they would be a pretty small minority. Plus, a lot of the villas have been split into flats anyway, and some of the larger ones even have small blocks of flats hidden in their back gardens. |
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on Oct 20, 2016 9:14:18 GMT
The way that they've split Stirling is a little odd but I dunno whether there'd be a better way of doing it if they absolutely had to split the city up. The city centre is entirely in North; the boundary line puts King's Park, Braehead and Fallin in North and Torbrex, St Ninians, Broomridge, Bannockburn and Cowie in South. I mean its not a great split but are they ever with small cities like Stirling: it could have been a lot worse. I do have a friend who lives on one of the roads on the boundary line though, and I'm wondering what seat they end up in. My hunch is that North probably is better for the Tories than South is, but then again it does have Clacks in it and that's pretty good for the SNP.
Its a shame I'm not in Stirling at the moment, I imagine that the Observer probably won't be very pleased and local press rage is always funny to read. When in the last Holyrood review they weren't happy at Bridge of Allen was taken out and put in the Clacks and Dunblane seat, I can only imagine how splitting Stirling up will makes them feels...
|
|
jluk234
Conservative
Next May Make Swinney Pay!
Posts: 431
|
Post by jluk234 on Oct 20, 2016 9:42:41 GMT
The way that they've split Stirling is a little odd but I dunno whether there'd be a better way of doing it if they absolutely had to split the city up. The city centre is entirely in North; the boundary line puts King's Park, Braehead and Fallin in North and Torbrex, St Ninians, Broomridge, Bannockburn and Cowie in South. I mean its not a great split but are they ever with small cities like Stirling: it could have been a lot worse. I do have a friend who lives on one of the roads on the boundary line though, and I'm wondering what seat they end up in. My hunch is that North probably is better for the Tories than South is, but then again it does have Clacks in it and that's pretty good for the SNP. Its a shame I'm not in Stirling at the moment, I imagine that the Observer probably won't be very pleased and local press rage is always funny to read. When in the last Holyrood review they weren't happy at Bridge of Allen was taken out and put in the Clacks and Dunblane seat, I can only imagine how splitting Stirling up will makes them feels... They could join the Falkirk side of Stirling South up with Clackmannanshire, allowing them to create a constituency covering the Stirling council area plus the Clackmannanshire West ward. Or Crieff as they did in 2013 |
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Oct 20, 2016 10:17:49 GMT
Can't wait to play around with these on Boundary Assistant!
|
|
jluk234
Conservative
Next May Make Swinney Pay!
Posts: 431
|
Post by jluk234 on Oct 20, 2016 10:47:21 GMT
Or Crieff as they did in 2013 That would be crossing into a different review area, messing up the boundaries in Perthshire and Fife... I think not. I meant the Stirling constituency. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2016 10:47:58 GMT
Do we have a high quality map yet? ASV - Look in the consultation portal for better-quality maps. I've just voted 'OK', very much on the basis of a first look (so I reserve my right to change my vote after closer scrutiny). Overall, it doesn't seem too bad, considering what I was expecting from the BCS, and it's definitely an improvement on the zombie. On the other hand, as predicted, the BCS has resolved the dilemma of whether to split wards or towns by the simple expedient of splitting both. I put up a plan that split no wards at all and had no three-area seats, but I fessed up to splitting nine towns (and Adrian blazed me for it). The BCS scheme also has no three-area seats but despite splitting numerous wards has still split several towns - Motherwell has suffered especially badly, but Airdrie, Bearsden, Hamilton, Renfrew and Stirling have all got the treatment. Oh yes, and I see they've gone for exactly the same Bellshill split that Adrian gave me such a hard time about. So, which is preferable? Seven town splits and countless ward splits? Or nine town splits and no ward splits at all? Edited to add: I am giving BCS the benefit of the doubt and assuming that dividing Banavie from Caol doesn't count as a town split. From this distance it's hard for me to get too worked up about the Scotland proposals, and the default position is "they must know what they're doing" (even though I know that isn't true in large parts of England). But they do seem quite rum, and I find it hard to believe that my proposals are worse, except in a couple of places. The BCS's problems seem to arise from trying to work around previous decisions rather than making radical choices to abandon some of those earlier decisions. A common refrain is "I'm okay with the (new) seat I'm in", which is all very well but is obviously a selfish attitude to take and hardly helps the review process. And the BCS reinforces this problem by producing its constituency posters that encourage people to just look at their own seat, and makes it difficult to see things in context. Has everyone seen the Commission's explanation of how they use postcodes to work out the electorates of proposed seats? Mind-boggling stuff, and makes it next to impossible for the mere mortals of the general public to propose accurate amendments. (At least the BCE has given everyone PD maps and data to play with.) Luckily most Scottish districts have PD information on their websites, except, frustratingly, for Edinburgh. If anyone has the PD data for Edinburgh (no matter how out of date) I'd be very glad to receive it. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 20, 2016 11:14:46 GMT
I meant the Stirling constituency. Yes I know? Crieff is situated in the seperate review area of Perthshire and Fife though? Adding Crieff to Stirling would inadvertently ruin the boundaries in Fife. Fife was really tricky in this review. The numbers made it hard to.avoid splitting towns. I really like the Commission's Dunfermline seat. Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes is good too. What it does mean is you are left with odd leftover seats like Kinrosshire and Cowdenbeath. Can't help thinking you should at least be able to take Kinghorn out of that one and put it somewhere better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 11:36:56 GMT
I've voted good on the basis that I'm still in North East Fife. Plus, a lot of the villas have been split into flats anyway, and some of the larger ones even have small blocks of flats hidden in their back gardens. Keeping North East Fife means they must create the absurd Kinross-shire and Cowdenbeath. I wouldn't be so confident of North East Fife's survival for the final proposal, much as I want the constituency to survive. I suspect that Kinross-shire & Cowdenbeath will get renamed, but to be honest, it's effectively the existing Ochil & Perthshire South except with Clackmannanshire replaced with part of Fife. I don't really see how replacing Cowdenbeath and Burntisland with Cupar and St Andrews would constitute a meaningful improvement, and would likely annoy even more people if anything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 11:55:21 GMT
Screwing my eyes up here but Murray and Mundell look like they might be out. Doubt it will be possible in practice to not have at least one tory seat in the borders. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2016 12:48:21 GMT
"Has everyone seen the Commission's explanation of how they use postcodes to work out the electorates of proposed seats? Mind-boggling stuff, and makes it next to impossible for the mere mortals of the general public to propose accurate amendments. (At least the BCE has given everyone PD maps and data to play with.) Luckily most Scottish districts have PD information on their websites, except, frustratingly, for Edinburgh. If anyone has the PD data for Edinburgh (no matter how out of date) I'd be very glad to receive it."
Many thanks to Adrian for this, because it succinctly expresses the point I've been banging away at for months.
If we want the boundary-drawing process to be open and accountable, so that community organizations and the general public can understand it, develop their own view about it, and seek to influence it, then we need seats to consist of agglomerations of some kind of pre-existing unit of suitable size, with maps and electorate data published in a form that is readily available to the general public.
The local government ward, for all its shortcomings, offers a unit that meets this requirement. I accept that other units are conceptually possible, but I'll leave it to others to make that case. But there has to be something: otherwise the process will become the preserve of professional outfits with access to a far more granular level of data and mapping than could ever be made generally available, and the general public (including us on these boards) will effectively be shut out.
|
|
bore
Labour
Posts: 55
|
Post by bore on Oct 20, 2016 13:10:20 GMT
Where are you getting the notional figures from, ntyuk1707? |
|
