|
|
Post by islington on May 9, 2016 7:14:21 GMT
I much admire Adrian's non-splitting version of Aberdeen and I shall steal it immediately.
And I'm grateful to Ntyuk for reminding me of 'Loudoun' as a component in a constituency name. So I'll call my E Ayrshire / E Renfrewshire mash-up 'East Renfrewshire and Loudoun'. I feel better about it now I have a decent name for it.
Meanwhile, in response to no requests at all, here's the non-split version of Edinburgh / W Lothian. Readers of a nervous disposition should look away now.
LIVINGSTON - W Lothian wards 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. This contains Livingston village and the whole central area of the new town. The eastern suburbs are unfortunately hived off into the following seat, but it's the only way I could get the numbers to work. As it is, it's only just over the minimum. 71048
LINLITHGOW - Edinburgh ward 2; WL wards 1, 2, 5, 8. 73770
EDINBURGH WEST - Wards 1, 3, 5, 6. This actually looks a reasonable seat. 78289
EDINBURGH NORTH - Wards 4, 12, 13, 14. This is as I had it before; another reasonable-looking seat. It includes the whole of Leith and in practice, I imagine there would be pressure to add 'and Leith' to the name; but Scottish constituency names are generally too long, in my view, so I've always gone for the simplest and shortest names I can think of. 78096
EDINBURGH SOUTH - Wards 8, 9, 16, 17. A somewhat awkward seat with a long extension almost into the city centre. 77044
EDINBURGH CENTRAL - Wards 7, 10, 11, 15. I saved the best for last. At first glance, this is an outrageously awkward seat. At second glance, it's still ugly but wards 10, 11 and 15, comprising the city centre and the areas immediately to the south of it, actually hang together well. The seat's misshapenness results from the inclusion of ward 7 (Sighthill/Gorgie) and this is less bad than it looks because the whole ward is tied to the city centre by the A70 road. 78260
So that's it. I can see there's a lot wrong with this plan - notably the division of Livingston and the fact that the WL seats are both small whereas the Edinburgh seats are all near the upper limit. But it's the only arrangement I can find that doesn't involve ward-splitting.
And I know BCS will split wards so this is an academic exercise. Nevertheless, I'd welcome a better non-split plan if anyone can come up with one. Any offers?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on May 9, 2016 8:49:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2016 11:34:35 GMT
Playing around with the numbers, I'm fairly convinced that putting Dumfries & Galloway in with Lanarkshire is the way to go. You can get 8 neat seats fairly easily with only a few ward splits.
However, whilst you can get 7 seats out of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, I don't think any of the attempts have really done a good job in East Renfrewshire. It's a small enough authority that you shouldn't be dividing it in half, but it doesn't have particularly good connections either to East Ayrshire or Paisley, so adding half a ward from either of those just looks ugly. And taking a chunk of East Kilbride is even worse.
Instead, given that the shortest route between Barrhead and Giffnock passes through Glasgow, I propose adding East Renfrewshire to Glasgow for 7 seats. Sure, it's probably pitchfork bait, but it makes a degree of sense and the resulting seats in Glasgow are fairly close to minimum change.
Something like this:
Eastwood & Darnley (67706+w) - all of East Renfrewshire and southern parts of Greater Pollok (ideally, up to the railway line.)
Glasgow South West (70032+x-w) - the rest of Greater Pollok, Craigton, Govan and enough of Pollokshields to get up to the quota.
Glasgow South (77327-x) - Linn, Langside, Newlands/Auldburn and most of Pollokshields.
Glasgow Central (80592-y) - Anderston/City, Southside Central, Calton and most of East Centre
Glasgow East (70480+y) - Shettleston, Baillieston, North East and the eastern bit of East Centre (following the existing East/North East boundary?)
Glasgow North (78635-z) - Springburn, Canal, Maryhill/Kelvin and Hillhead east of the B808
Glasgow North West (69287+z) - Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Drumchapel/Anniesland, Partick West and Hillhead west of the B808.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on May 9, 2016 12:04:09 GMT
Playing around with the numbers, I'm fairly convinced that putting Dumfries & Galloway in with Lanarkshire is the way to go. You can get 8 neat seats fairly easily with only a few ward splits. However, whilst you can get 7 seats out of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, I don't think any of the attempts have really done a good job in East Renfrewshire. It's a small enough authority that you shouldn't be dividing it in half, but it doesn't have particularly good connections either to East Ayrshire or Paisley, so adding half a ward from either of those just looks ugly. And taking a chunk of East Kilbride is even worse. Instead, given that the shortest route between Barrhead and Giffnock passes through Glasgow, I propose adding East Renfrewshire to Glasgow for 7 seats. Sure, it's probably pitchfork bait, but it makes a degree of sense and the resulting seats in Glasgow are fairly close to minimum change. Something like this: Eastwood & Darnley (67706+w) - all of East Renfrewshire and southern parts of Greater Pollok (ideally, up to the railway line.) Glasgow South West (70032+x-w) - the rest of Greater Pollok, Craigton, Govan and enough of Pollokshields to get up to the quota. Glasgow South (77327-x) - Linn, Langside, Newlands/Auldburn and most of Pollokshields. Glasgow Central (80592-y) - Anderston/City, Southside Central, Calton and most of East Centre Glasgow East (70480+y) - Shettleston, Baillieston, North East and the eastern bit of East Centre (following the existing East/North East boundary?) Glasgow North (78635-z) - Springburn, Canal, Maryhill/Kelvin and Hillhead east of the B808 Glasgow North West (69287+z) - Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Drumchapel/Anniesland, Partick West and Hillhead west of the B808. If you added the Newlands bits of Newlands/Auldburn to East Renfrewshire rather than split Greater Pollok I don't think there'd be many objections. In fact, I think it would be positively welcomed by many Newlands residents. You might have to redraw the rest of the city somewhat to make it closer to the zombie review, but that wouldn't be too difficult. The only issue that would then arise is what to do with the rest of Renfrewshire and Ayrshire, which would then be too big for six seats. On the subject of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, it's worth noting that at the time of the zombie review it would have been pretty easy to create 7 seats across the whole of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, to create 8 seats across D&G and both Lanarkshire authorities, and 2 seats across the two Dunbartonshire authorities--I, for one, expected something like that--yet the Commission chose not to do so. The numbers work better for a D&G/NLan/SLan arrangement this time, but I wouldn't rule out alternatives, especially if the Commission decide that they don't want to continue with a seat that crosses the Lowther hills. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2016 12:14:59 GMT
Playing around with the numbers, I'm fairly convinced that putting Dumfries & Galloway in with Lanarkshire is the way to go. You can get 8 neat seats fairly easily with only a few ward splits. However, whilst you can get 7 seats out of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, I don't think any of the attempts have really done a good job in East Renfrewshire. It's a small enough authority that you shouldn't be dividing it in half, but it doesn't have particularly good connections either to East Ayrshire or Paisley, so adding half a ward from either of those just looks ugly. And taking a chunk of East Kilbride is even worse. Instead, given that the shortest route between Barrhead and Giffnock passes through Glasgow, I propose adding East Renfrewshire to Glasgow for 7 seats. Sure, it's probably pitchfork bait, but it makes a degree of sense and the resulting seats in Glasgow are fairly close to minimum change. Something like this: Eastwood & Darnley (67706+w) - all of East Renfrewshire and southern parts of Greater Pollok (ideally, up to the railway line.) Glasgow South West (70032+x-w) - the rest of Greater Pollok, Craigton, Govan and enough of Pollokshields to get up to the quota. Glasgow South (77327-x) - Linn, Langside, Newlands/Auldburn and most of Pollokshields. Glasgow Central (80592-y) - Anderston/City, Southside Central, Calton and most of East Centre Glasgow East (70480+y) - Shettleston, Baillieston, North East and the eastern bit of East Centre (following the existing East/North East boundary?) Glasgow North (78635-z) - Springburn, Canal, Maryhill/Kelvin and Hillhead east of the B808 Glasgow North West (69287+z) - Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Drumchapel/Anniesland, Partick West and Hillhead west of the B808. If you added the Newlands bits of Newlands/Auldburn to East Renfrewshire rather than split Greater Pollok I don't think there'd be many objections. In fact, I think it would be positively welcomed by many Newlands residents. You might have to redraw the rest of the city somewhat to make it closer to the zombie review, but that wouldn't be too difficult. The only issue that would then arise is what to do with the rest of Renfrewshire and Ayrshire, which would then be too big for six seats. On the subject of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, it's worth noting that at the time of the zombie review it would have been pretty easy to create 7 seats across the whole of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, to create 8 seats across D&G and both Lanarkshire authorities, and 2 seats across the two Dunbartonshire authorities--I, for one, expected something like that--yet the Commission chose not to do so. The numbers work better for a D&G/NLan/SLan arrangement this time, but I wouldn't rule out alternatives, especially if the Commission decide that they don't want to continue with a seat that crosses the Lowther hills. Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and the three Ayrshire authorities have a combined quota of 6.12 seats, so they'd be fine for six seats. Though I take the point that the Commission may not be keen on a D&G/Lanarkshire arrangement - they are after all using the zombie review as a starting point. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,834
|
Post by john07 on May 9, 2016 12:51:03 GMT
A bit annoying we don't have ward Parliamentary electorate stats. I can't see what use they would be given the fact that they often cover bits of two Constituences. Polling district Parliamentary electorate data is far more useful surely? |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 9, 2016 14:42:05 GMT
Playing around with the numbers, I'm fairly convinced that putting Dumfries & Galloway in with Lanarkshire is the way to go. You can get 8 neat seats fairly easily with only a few ward splits. However, whilst you can get 7 seats out of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, I don't think any of the attempts have really done a good job in East Renfrewshire. It's a small enough authority that you shouldn't be dividing it in half, but it doesn't have particularly good connections either to East Ayrshire or Paisley, so adding half a ward from either of those just looks ugly. And taking a chunk of East Kilbride is even worse. Instead, given that the shortest route between Barrhead and Giffnock passes through Glasgow, I propose adding East Renfrewshire to Glasgow for 7 seats. Sure, it's probably pitchfork bait, but it makes a degree of sense and the resulting seats in Glasgow are fairly close to minimum change. Something like this: Eastwood & Darnley (67706+w) - all of East Renfrewshire and southern parts of Greater Pollok (ideally, up to the railway line.) I'm happy to stick with the Ayr-Renfrew grouping, rather than Ayr-Galloway, partly because it's good to see both options get a good airing before a decision is made. I don't have any objections to adding a bit of South Glasgow to the Eastwood seat, except that the Glasgow seats are already slightly undersized and they're going to be smaller still. (Edit: I suppose I could solve my oversized Paisley problem by transferring Old Hall to the city - Old Hall and Darnley forming a kind of hostage exchange! - which would create nicer seats than if I put a bit of Paisley into Eastwood, but it goes againse the grain for me to suggest two border crossings.) Why has Giffnock never been added to Glasgow anyway? Given that Rutherglen was added and then subsequently removed, I guess it's unlikely that there'll be a Greater Glasgow council anytime soon... |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 9, 2016 16:14:39 GMT
Well, now, if we're saying that the Glasgow boundary isn't so sacrosanct after all, then all manner of interesting possibilities present themselves to the determined non-splitter.
How about this for a non-split solution to Glasgow, based on a couple of minutes' playing with Boundary Assistant? Just the Glasgow area for a start; I haven't attempted to work out the ramifications for the rest of Scotland.
PAISLEY AND POLLOCK - Refrewshire wards 3, 4, 5, 6; Glasgow ward 3. 73295
GLASGOW SOUTH WEST AND RENFREW - Renfrewshire wards 1, 2, 11; Glasgow wards 4, 5. 77419
GLASGOW SOUTH - Wards 2, 6, 7, 8. 75596
GLASGOW SOUTH EAST AND RUTHERGLEN - Glasgow wards 1, 19; S Lanarks wards 11, 12, 13. I'm particularly pleased with this one. 76912
GLASGOW CENTRAL - Wards 9, 10, 11, 17. This is another beauty. 71478
GLASGOW EAST - Wards 18, 20, 21. This is actually a perfectly sane seat as proposed before. 71948
GLASGOW WEST - Glasgow wards 12, 13, 14; W Duns ward 4. This doesn't quite cut the Clydebank wards off from the rest of W Duns. 78231
GLASGOW NORTH AND BEARSDEN - E Duns wards 1, 2, 3; Glasgow wards 15, 16. Thus potentially circumventing the otherwise very tricky problem of which ward to take out of E Duns to get it down to size. 76693
All right. I admit this post is not 100% serious, so don't shoot me down.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 9, 2016 16:23:03 GMT
Adrian, thanks for this. Regarding the parishes on the Glasgow map - I'm no expert, but the 'Glasgow parish' looks to me very much like the old Royalty and Barony combined (see e.g. the boundary down the River Kelvin and the tell-tale presence of Govan parish on both sides of the Clyde). It was pleasing to be reminded that 'Bothwell' used to be a constituency name (and in fact continued until as recently as 1983). Also, that Glasgow (on tighter boundaries than today) had 15 (!) seats in 1954; I wonder what the electorate of those tiny inner-city seats is now. |
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on May 9, 2016 17:11:15 GMT
EAL: you're quite right about the rest of Renfrewshire and Ayrshire (my bad). It's possible to get six seats out of them, though there are certainly problems when one hits Ayrshire, e.g. the following, which splits Cumnock from the Doon Valley and Carrick:
1. Paisley and Renfrew: Paisley x4, Renfrew x2, Inchinnan as per the zombie review (and perhaps a bit more) (68,016 + Inchinnan)
2. Inverclyde: Inverclyde council, Bishop/Bridge of Weir, Erskine minus Inchinnan (78,957 - Inchinnan)
3. Renfrewshire South and Ayrshire North: Johnstone x2, Houston/Linwood; North Coast, Kilbirnie/Beith, Dalry/West Kilbride, Ardrossan/Arran (78,504)
4. Ayrshire Central: Irvine x2, Saltcoats/Stevenston, Kilwinning; Annick; Troon (77,828)
5. Kilmarnock and Cumnock: Kilmarnock x4, Irvine Valley, Ballochmyle, Cumnock; Kyle minus Monkton (80,990 - Monkton, Mossblown, St Quivox)
6. Ayr, Carrick and Doon Valley: Prestwick, Ayr x3, Maybole, Girvan, Kyle (Monkton, Mossblown, St Quivox); Doon Valley (73,853 + Monkton, Mossblown, St Quivox)
Adrian: 'Hamilton and Dalziel' would be fun as a name, if only to see how quickly people get used to how 'Dalziel' is pronounced (easily enough, given the former MP for West Lothian, but the spelling may fox some to begin with). As for Giffnock: not sure, but I imagine the weight of public opinion, with the official reason that Giffnock was always part of Renfrewshire, and the real reason a reluctance to risk larger rates bills in the city of Glasgow. A lot of places got shifted out of their historical counties in 1974 and again in 1995. Kilsyth was historically part of Stirlingshire, became part of the Dumbarton sub-region of Strathclyde because it was linked with Cumbernauld in the local district council, and ended up in Lanarkshire largely because East Dunbartonshire was created as a non-Labour-voting (or at least less-Labour-voting) enclave.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 9, 2016 18:20:10 GMT
GLASGOW NORTH AND BEARSDEN - E Duns wards 1, 2, 3; Glasgow wards 15, 16. Thus potentially circumventing the otherwise very tricky problem of which ward to take out of E Duns to get it down to size. 76693 I think you mean "Maryhill and New Kilpatrick"... |
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on May 9, 2016 18:45:57 GMT
Yes, I think Aberdeen works fine. I promised Edinburgh with one ward split and Glasgow with two. Instead of ward names, I'll use the ward numbers supplied by BCS because these seem to be fairly standard and appear on lots of online maps. GLASGOW: WEST (or NORTH WEST) - 12, 13, 14 and 11(pt). This would be the westernmost 25% (or so) of ward 11 (Hillhead), which is a long, thin ward so this ought to be a fairly easy split. 74428 (est) NORTH - 15, 16, 17 and 11(pt). The rest of Hillhead. 73494 (est) EAST - 18, 20, 21. Remarkable: a seat of only three wards. And there's nothing forced or artificial about it either. 71948 CENTRAL - 9, 10, 19 and 8(pt). This takes about 80% of ward 8 (Southside Central). This is a really tricky split because I want to include everything except a slice in the north east of the ward in the Glasgow Bridge area and extending down the eastern side of the ward as far south as necessary (which I hope won't be too far because this isn't a pretty arrangement). 74983 (est) SOUTH WEST - 3, 4, 5 and 8(pt). This includes the said awkward slice of ward 8. 74173 (est) SOUTH - 1, 2, 6, 7. The remaining four wards. 77327 I have mapped these suggestions, they are really good!  I did change a few constituency names in the process (2 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh) Glasgow 1. Glasgow North West 2. Glasgow North 3. Glasgow North East 4. Glasgow Central 5. Glasgow South West 6. Glasgow South A suggested tweak for Glasgow: 1. I'm not keen on the portion from Southside Central moving into South West, as it splits the Gorbals community. Better would be to move the bottom south-west corner of Newlands/Auldburn (between the Glasgow-East Kilbride railway and the Glasgow-Kilmarnock railway lines) into South West. The area is part of the pithily named Arden Carnwadric Kennishead and Old Darnley Community Council, the rest of which is in South West. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I would estimate about 3,000 electors. 2. To make up for this, move the Park Circus area of Anderston/Central (the nobbly bit sticking northwards north-west of the M8) into North. There's about 800 electors there, enough to bring Central within range. 3. Then move the North West/North boundary in Hillhead as close to Byres Road (the B808) as the numbers allow. Byres Road itself would be perfect, but Hyndland and Dowanhill are heavily populated so it might not be possible. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 10, 2016 7:05:04 GMT
If I may, a few queries arising from the BCS ward data. - In E Duns, Bishopbriggs South is listed twice, as wards 6 and 7. I assume that the electorate for the ward is the combined number of 9597. But why is it listed in this way?
- Likewise, the Glaswegian ward of Pollokshields has two entries (although in this case, both are shown as ward 6 but the smaller part is distinguished as 'Pollokshields East'). Again, I assume the combined number (17821) is correct for the ward as a whole.
- Finally, can it really be true that since the zombie review the electorate of Upper Braes ward (Falkirk) has plummeted from 11704 to 6991?
Can anyone help?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 10, 2016 10:25:56 GMT
I have mapped these suggestions, they are really good! I did change a few constituency names in the process (2 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh) Glasgow1. Glasgow North West 2. Glasgow North 3. Glasgow North East 4. Glasgow Central 5. Glasgow South West 6. Glasgow South A suggested tweak for Glasgow: 1. I'm not keen on the portion from Southside Central moving into South West, as it splits the Gorbals community. Better would be to move the bottom south-west corner of Newlands/Auldburn (between the Glasgow-East Kilbride railway and the Glasgow-Kilmarnock railway lines) into South West. The area is part of the pithily named Arden Carnwadric Kennishead and Old Darnley Community Council, the rest of which is in South West. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I would estimate about 3,000 electors. 2. To make up for this, move the Park Circus area of Anderston/Central (the nobbly bit sticking northwards north-west of the M8) into North. There's about 800 electors there, enough to bring Central within range. 3. Then move the North West/North boundary in Hillhead as close to Byres Road (the B808) as the numbers allow. Byres Road itself would be perfect, but Hyndland and Dowanhill are heavily populated so it might not be possible. AJ Thomson Thanks for this, and I sure something along these lines is much more the sort of thing BCS is likely to do, since it's obviously not bothered about ward splits. But I am. I accept, however, that splits are necessary in Glasgow, simply because (as this thread has demonstrated) avoiding them would result in really horrible seats in the whole area surrounding the city. But I still think the number of splits should be as small as possible. What I'm not sure of is whether the splits should be on the lines of Community Councils or Polling Districts. If the former, then the obvious CC to take from Southside ward is Laurieston - assuming it has at least the minimum of 999 electors that you need to make this split work (how might one go about discovering this?). But I've tended to assume that, since CC boundaries don't appear to have any regard to ward boundaries, that for practical reasons it might be better to split Southside ward (and Hillhead) along PD lines. But again, is there any way of finding out PD electorates in Glasgow? (Just for the record, and despite GKR's inventive suggestion of how to avoid it by crossing Beauly Firth and dividing Inverness, I'm also accepting the zombie review's double ward split in Highland. But those four splits in Scotland - two in Highland and two in Glasgow - plus the one unavoidable English split in Sheffield, are the only splits you need in the entire UK.) There's a plausible argument, of course, that such a limited approach to ward splitting means dividing natural communities. I can see this case. But what I can't see is an argument for the approach by BCS in the zombie review which not only split wards all over Scotland but also resulted in the entirely avoidable division of natural communities in such places as Ayr, Dumfermline, Cambuslang, Bearsden - all of which communities (far be it from me to point out) can be left undivided in the minimal-splitting approach that I'm suggesting. It seems to me that either we split wards or we split communities. What we shouldn't be doing is split both. |
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on May 10, 2016 11:43:50 GMT
Islington Try www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28742&p=0 for Glasgow polling district numbers. It's not much help without a map of the polling district boundaries, which the city council doesn't provide, but it's possible to make plausible guesses where they lie. The polling district codes, from what I can deduce are made up of: a) two letters that refer to the Holyrood seat b) two numbers that refer to the polling district number within the ward c) two numbers that refer to the ward number Thus CC0907 means a polling district in the Glasgow Cathcart constituency, ward 7 (Langside), district 9. If you've got the Holyrood boundaries in front of you, it's possible to make a reasonable guess. Either way, I hope it helps. I'm happy to agree to disagree re ward-splitting. I see Scotland's situation as much more like Northern Ireland's, where the local electoral areas used for council elections are split into constituent wards which 'exist' only for the purposes of creating parliamentary seats, with the result that local electoral areas are frequently split. Scotland, unhelpfully, doesn't yet have such sub-divisions, and I think it would be useful if they were created. I think it's easy to underestimate local opinion can be about what areas should be linked with what in Scotland. I recall at the time of the zombie review posting on this forum a proposal for a south Perthshire and part of east Fife seat similar to that which has been proposed further up this thread, and I was taken to task by one who knew the area better than I did for separating the east Neuk from St Andrews (as were the BCS during the zombie review when they proposed a more minor split of north-eastern Fife, which prompted a revision). Similarly, I am sure there would be opposition in the Borders to the inclusion of Peebles in a Borders seats if that entailed the removal of Galashiels. I think we can take it as read that there will be no 'Beauly Banks' seat that splits Inverness. The zombie review was underpinned by a wish to minimize the number of combined council areas, both across a range of seats, and within an individual seat. The latter explains the division of Ayr, something that was frankly crazy. The division of Bearsden was also undesirable, but contingent on the fact that the BCS chose to link the two Dunbartonshires with North Lanarkshire: the counterproposal put forward by the then MP for Dunbartonshire East that combined West Dunbartonshire with Glasgow and drew East Dunbartonshire in a way that kept Bearsden united was rejected. The splitting of Dunfermline was inevitable given the link with Clackmannanshire, but the alternatives were a) splitting north-east Fife, b) a socially coherent but geographically eccentric seat that skirted round Dunfermline to take in the old Fife coalfield (Lochs, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly), or c) a complete rethink of which authorities were combined with each other. Cambuslang was always going to be messy, given the BCS's apparent – and, to me, inexplicable – reluctance to cross the North/South Lanarkshire boundary. Re your other post: I have assumed that the two figures for Pollokshields and Bishopbriggs South should in each case have been combined. But, like you, I'm at a loss to explain Upper Braes, particularly since www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/council-democracy/councillors-decision-making/councillors/ward-9/docs/Ward%209%20-%20Upper%20Braes%20-%20Insight%20Ward%20Profile%202015.pdf?v=201509281139 makes it clear that the electorate was over 11,000 as recently as last year. I think part of its electorate must have got included in Lower Braes by mistake, as its electorate seems to have shot up by the same amount as Upper Braes fell. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 10, 2016 12:08:58 GMT
I base my redistricting on wards, but if the most important thing is keeping communities in one piece (with respecting LA boundaries also being somewhat important) I don't see the problem with ward-splitting, Islington. It's not as though 20 or even 30 ward splits is a lot, given how many wards we're talking about. Trying artificially to keep the number down to a handful sounds more like an academic exercise (or a process designed solely with the convenience of local political parties in mind) than an attempt to draw meaningful boundaries.
Thanks for the notes about the zombie review, AJT. Although I want to present proposals that offer a different approach, it's important for me to read a bit deeper into what public opinion was like since there's no point proposing something that has already been rejected out of hand.
I hope all the amateur psephologists around here will spread their proposals via social media and the local press before the BCS publishes its proposals; it'd be great for the general public to have something to compare the BCS's ideas to, especially in controversial cases. I'm sure Lewis Baston will be publishing his proposals, but there's no reason why the rest of us can't as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 10, 2016 12:29:35 GMT
My proposed constituencies for Scotland, part 2 (City of Edinburgh & West Lothian):
1. Edinburgh North & Leith. The wards of Leith, Leith Walk, Inverleith (part) and Forth. Electorate: 77,600 approx.
2. Edinburgh Central. The wards of Inverleith (part), Southside/Newington, Meadows/Morningside, City Centre, and Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart, plus the Easter Road part of Craigentinny/Duddingston. Electorate: 77,900 approx.
3. Edinburgh West. The wards of Almond, Drum Brae/Gyle, Sighthill/Gorgie, and Corstorphine/Murrayfield (no split wards here). Electorate: 77,979.
4. Edinnburgh South East. The wards of Craigentinny/Duddingston (most), Portabello/Craigmillar, Liberton/Gilmerton, and Colinton/Fairmilehead. Electorate: 78,050 approx.
5. Livingston. The City of Edinburgh ward of Pentland Hills, plus the West Lothian wards of East Livingstone & East Calder, Livingston North/South, and Fauldhouse & the Breich Valley. Electorate: 76,603.
6. Linlithgow. All remaining West Lothian wards, plus the Falkirk ward of Upper Brass. Electorate: 75,206.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 10, 2016 12:44:29 GMT
My proposed constituencies for Scotland, part 3 (City of Glasgow): The wards in Glasgow are much too large to avoid splitting.
1. Glasgow Pollok. The wards of Greater Pollok, Craigton, Pollokshields, and the 'Auldburn' part of Newlands/Auldburn ward. Electorate: 74,000 approx.
2. Glasgow Cathcart. The wards of Southside Central, Langside, Linn, and the 'Newlands' part of Newlands/Auldburn ward. Electorate: 72,000 approx.
3. Glasgow Govan. The wards of Govan, Partick West (half), Garscadden/Scotstounhill, and Drumchapel/Anniesland. Electorate: 78,100 approx.
4. Glasgow Hillhead. The wards of Anderston/City, Hillhead, and Maryhill/Kelvin, and half of Partick West. Electorate: 76,000 approx.
5. Glasgow Bridgeton. The wards of Shettleston, Baillieston, and Calton, plus part of East Centre ward. Electorate: 73,000 approx.
6. Glasgow Springburn. The wards of Springburn, East Centre (part) North East, and Canal. Electorate: 73,100 approx.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 10, 2016 14:31:02 GMT
Islington Try www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28742&p=0 for Glasgow polling district numbers. It's not much help without a map of the polling district boundaries, which the city council doesn't provide, but it's possible to make plausible guesses where they lie. The polling district codes, from what I can deduce are made up of: a) two letters that refer to the Holyrood seat b) two numbers that refer to the polling district number within the ward c) two numbers that refer to the ward number Thus CC0907 means a polling district in the Glasgow Cathcart constituency, ward 7 (Langside), district 9. If you've got the Holyrood boundaries in front of you, it's possible to make a reasonable guess. Either way, I hope it helps. I'm happy to agree to disagree re ward-splitting. I see Scotland's situation as much more like Northern Ireland's, where the local electoral areas used for council elections are split into constituent wards which 'exist' only for the purposes of creating parliamentary seats, with the result that local electoral areas are frequently split. Scotland, unhelpfully, doesn't yet have such sub-divisions, and I think it would be useful if they were created. I think it's easy to underestimate local opinion can be about what areas should be linked with what in Scotland. I recall at the time of the zombie review posting on this forum a proposal for a south Perthshire and part of east Fife seat similar to that which has been proposed further up this thread, and I was taken to task by one who knew the area better than I did for separating the east Neuk from St Andrews (as were the BCS during the zombie review when they proposed a more minor split of north-eastern Fife, which prompted a revision). Similarly, I am sure there would be opposition in the Borders to the inclusion of Peebles in a Borders seats if that entailed the removal of Galashiels. I think we can take it as read that there will be no 'Beauly Banks' seat that splits Inverness. The zombie review was underpinned by a wish to minimize the number of combined council areas, both across a range of seats, and within an individual seat. The latter explains the division of Ayr, something that was frankly crazy. The division of Bearsden was also undesirable, but contingent on the fact that the BCS chose to link the two Dunbartonshires with North Lanarkshire: the counterproposal put forward by the then MP for Dunbartonshire East that combined West Dunbartonshire with Glasgow and drew East Dunbartonshire in a way that kept Bearsden united was rejected. The splitting of Dunfermline was inevitable given the link with Clackmannanshire, but the alternatives were a) splitting north-east Fife, b) a socially coherent but geographically eccentric seat that skirted round Dunfermline to take in the old Fife coalfield (Lochs, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly), or c) a complete rethink of which authorities were combined with each other. Cambuslang was always going to be messy, given the BCS's apparent – and, to me, inexplicable – reluctance to cross the North/South Lanarkshire boundary. Re your other post: I have assumed that the two figures for Pollokshields and Bishopbriggs South should in each case have been combined. But, like you, I'm at a loss to explain Upper Braes, particularly since www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/council-democracy/councillors-decision-making/councillors/ward-9/docs/Ward%209%20-%20Upper%20Braes%20-%20Insight%20Ward%20Profile%202015.pdf?v=201509281139 makes it clear that the electorate was over 11,000 as recently as last year. I think part of its electorate must have got included in Lower Braes by mistake, as its electorate seems to have shot up by the same amount as Upper Braes fell. AJT - Thanks for this full and helpful response. To take the last point first: You're right. I hadn't spotted the balancing discrepancy in Lower Braes. It seems that about 4000 or 5000 voters may have been counted in the wrong ward by mistake. This will be a matter of potential concern to anyone whose plans put these wards in separate seats. (But fortunately Ntyuk's proposals for this area, which I'm very happy to support, have both wards in the Falkirk seat.) On the split of Dunfermline and Fife generally, I can see that the problem arose from a decision to group Clacks and Fife. But I think that allowing this to become a problem shows that BCS attached too much significance to the groupings. To my mind, the grouping of areas is provisional only, a mere expedient to allow us to start the boundary-drawing process and to make sure that we get broadly the right number of seats in the various parts of the country (or English region). But if the grouping starts to cause more problems than it solves, then it can be discarded in favour of some other arrangement. In this case, I too originally thought of Fife/Clacks as a logical combination with 4 seats. But trying to draw them enmeshed me immediately in exactly the problems you describe; so when I saw Ntyuk's admirable scheme, based on linking Fife with P&K instead, I had no problem with switching my allegiance to that. After all, this plan offers a way of keeping all the towns together and without any ward splits - what's not to like? It's certainly immeasurably better than the zombie plan, which in Dunfermline offers a textbook example of dividing a community AND splitting a ward - the worst of both worlds. As for East Neuk - well, I'm sure the locals would rather share a seat with St Andrews than with Glenrothes. I imagine most people would. But somewhere has to go in with Glenrothes, and I don't think East Neuk's preference can be accommodated without destroying an otherwise excellent map. And it is ironic - to put it no more strongly - that BCS thought E Neuk's complaint was a reason sufficiently compelling to revise its plan in this area, whilst simultaneously confirming its decision to drive boundaries through the middle of Dunfermline and Ayr. Isn't there something in the bible about swallowing camels but straining at gnats*? Doubtless BCS will split wards with abandon. But I'm setting out what I should do, given the rules; I'm not trying to second-guess the BCS. On the overall ward-split issue, I'm also happy to agree to disagree. There is a perfectly reasonable argument for splitting wards if it avoids dividing natural communities. What i can't see the argument for is splitting wards, then going ahead and dividing the natural communities anyway. * That's 'gnats', not 'Nats'. |
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on May 13, 2016 19:39:49 GMT
Islington Try www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28742&p=0 for Glasgow polling district numbers. It's not much help without a map of the polling district boundaries, which the city council doesn't provide, but it's possible to make plausible guesses where they lie. The polling district codes, from what I can deduce are made up of: a) two letters that refer to the Holyrood seat b) two numbers that refer to the polling district number within the ward c) two numbers that refer to the ward number Thus CC0907 means a polling district in the Glasgow Cathcart constituency, ward 7 (Langside), district 9. If you've got the Holyrood boundaries in front of you, it's possible to make a reasonable guess. Either way, I hope it helps. I'm happy to agree to disagree re ward-splitting. I see Scotland's situation as much more like Northern Ireland's, where the local electoral areas used for council elections are split into constituent wards which 'exist' only for the purposes of creating parliamentary seats, with the result that local electoral areas are frequently split. Scotland, unhelpfully, doesn't yet have such sub-divisions, and I think it would be useful if they were created. I think it's easy to underestimate local opinion can be about what areas should be linked with what in Scotland. I recall at the time of the zombie review posting on this forum a proposal for a south Perthshire and part of east Fife seat similar to that which has been proposed further up this thread, and I was taken to task by one who knew the area better than I did for separating the east Neuk from St Andrews (as were the BCS during the zombie review when they proposed a more minor split of north-eastern Fife, which prompted a revision). Similarly, I am sure there would be opposition in the Borders to the inclusion of Peebles in a Borders seats if that entailed the removal of Galashiels. I think we can take it as read that there will be no 'Beauly Banks' seat that splits Inverness. The zombie review was underpinned by a wish to minimize the number of combined council areas, both across a range of seats, and within an individual seat. The latter explains the division of Ayr, something that was frankly crazy. The division of Bearsden was also undesirable, but contingent on the fact that the BCS chose to link the two Dunbartonshires with North Lanarkshire: the counterproposal put forward by the then MP for Dunbartonshire East that combined West Dunbartonshire with Glasgow and drew East Dunbartonshire in a way that kept Bearsden united was rejected. The splitting of Dunfermline was inevitable given the link with Clackmannanshire, but the alternatives were a) splitting north-east Fife, b) a socially coherent but geographically eccentric seat that skirted round Dunfermline to take in the old Fife coalfield (Lochs, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly), or c) a complete rethink of which authorities were combined with each other. Cambuslang was always going to be messy, given the BCS's apparent – and, to me, inexplicable – reluctance to cross the North/South Lanarkshire boundary. Re your other post: I have assumed that the two figures for Pollokshields and Bishopbriggs South should in each case have been combined. But, like you, I'm at a loss to explain Upper Braes, particularly since www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/council-democracy/councillors-decision-making/councillors/ward-9/docs/Ward%209%20-%20Upper%20Braes%20-%20Insight%20Ward%20Profile%202015.pdf?v=201509281139 makes it clear that the electorate was over 11,000 as recently as last year. I think part of its electorate must have got included in Lower Braes by mistake, as its electorate seems to have shot up by the same amount as Upper Braes fell. AJT - Thanks for this full and helpful response. To take the last point first: You're right. I hadn't spotted the balancing discrepancy in Lower Braes. It seems that about 4000 or 5000 voters may have been counted in the wrong ward by mistake. This will be a matter of potential concern to anyone whose plans put these wards in separate seats. (But fortunately Ntyuk's proposals for this area, which I'm very happy to support, have both wards in the Falkirk seat.) On the split of Dunfermline and Fife generally, I can see that the problem arose from a decision to group Clacks and Fife. But I think that allowing this to become a problem shows that BCS attached too much significance to the groupings. To my mind, the grouping of areas is provisional only, a mere expedient to allow us to start the boundary-drawing process and to make sure that we get broadly the right number of seats in the various parts of the country (or English region). But if the grouping starts to cause more problems than it solves, then it can be discarded in favour of some other arrangement. In this case, I too originally thought of Fife/Clacks as a logical combination with 4 seats. But trying to draw them enmeshed me immediately in exactly the problems you describe; so when I saw Ntyuk's admirable scheme, based on linking Fife with P&K instead, I had no problem with switching my allegiance to that. After all, this plan offers a way of keeping all the towns together and without any ward splits - what's not to like? It's certainly immeasurably better than the zombie plan, which in Dunfermline offers a textbook example of dividing a community AND splitting a ward - the worst of both worlds. As for East Neuk - well, I'm sure the locals would rather share a seat with St Andrews than with Glenrothes. I imagine most people would. But somewhere has to go in with Glenrothes, and I don't think East Neuk's preference can be accommodated without destroying an otherwise excellent map. And it is ironic - to put it no more strongly - that BCS thought E Neuk's complaint was a reason sufficiently compelling to revise its plan in this area, whilst simultaneously confirming its decision to drive boundaries through the middle of Dunfermline and Ayr. Isn't there something in the bible about swallowing camels but straining at gnats*? Doubtless BCS will split wards with abandon. But I'm setting out what I should do, given the rules; I'm not trying to second-guess the BCS. On the overall ward-split issue, I'm also happy to agree to disagree. There is a perfectly reasonable argument for splitting wards if it avoids dividing natural communities. What i can't see the argument for is splitting wards, then going ahead and dividing the natural communities anyway. * That's 'gnats', not 'Nats'. Trying to second-guess the BCS is a probably a fool's errand, so I guess I should make an appointment with my doctor. Certainly, they have a history of coming up with the unexpected and unlikely. Prior to the pre-2005 review, a fairly obvious arrangement for Lanarkshire was seven seats across the two authorities, with D&G lumped in with Ayrshire, whereas instead D&G was lumped in with South Lanarkshire and the Borders. Prior to the zombie review, a minimum change argument would have suggested maintaining the D&G/South Lanarkshire link and creating seven seats across Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, whereas instead D&G was lumped in with East and South Ayrshire. Their initial proposals for Edinburgh in 2005 were condemned by virtually everyone. I haven't the faintest idea what they'll do this time. I can see some logic in their wanting to restrict the number of local authorities involved in each group of seats, as that would probably lead to longer local inquiry meetings (albeit fewer of them), with interested parties having to travel further. But that might lead to problems further down the line. The case you mention of Dunfermline is a good one. Given a Clacks/Fife link, the east-west division of the town was the only thing they could have done without creating an oddly shaped seat of the sort I described in my last post. But perhaps that should have suggested to them that they were on the wrong track for the reasons you mentioned of dividing both wards and communities. (And on that front: yes, I'm happy to admit that a P&K/Fife pairing that splits the east Neuk from the rest of north-east Fife is a better solution than a Clacks/Fife one that divides Dunfermline.) |
|
