|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 2, 2016 1:32:02 GMT
Staffordshire Traditional Cheadle, Leek & Uttoxeter 74023 Stoke Tunstall 75420 Stoke Burslem & Hanley 74586 Stoke Fenton & Longton 74263 Newcastle-under-Lyne 76310 Stafford 76054 Burton-upon-Trent 78020 Tamworth 77815 Lichfield 76821 Cannock 77364 Aldridge 75406 Walsall 73248 Wednesbury & Willenhall 73621 Wolverhampton East 76553 Wolverhampton West 74667 West Bromwich 71980 Dudley North 77431 Wombourne 73866 Dudley South & Rowley Regis 76426 Smethwick 76859   |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 2, 2016 7:51:31 GMT
Anyone know where islington is, he hasn't logged in for a couple of days
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Aug 2, 2016 8:08:04 GMT
Those aren't really the traditional counties (even the 1885 counties), things got awfully messy in parts of the West Midlands. Dudley was right up to its consumption by the maw of the West Midlands an Worcestershire enclave in a sea of Staffordshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 2, 2016 9:15:35 GMT
Anyone know where islington is It's between Camden and Hackney. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 2, 2016 9:16:50 GMT
Anyone know where islington is It's between Camden and Hackney. So what do you think about my traditional counties plan islington? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 2, 2016 9:38:44 GMT
ASV
I cannot but admire your indefatigability: and of course it's up to you to take whatever approach you please. But so am I; and my opinion is that pre-1974 counties have no bearing on the current review. Any boundary commission that put forward seats on this basis would find itself judicially reviewed for allowing itself to be influenced by an irrelevant consideration. So putting seats forward on this basis is a purely theoretical exercise, which is why I tend not to comment.
Current LA boundaries, however, including wards, are very much a material consideration. I therefore much admire your energy and ingenuity in devising schemes that avoid ward splits even in the most intractable areas such as Birmingham and Glasgow; and accordingly I have commented on your plans in these areas.
Indeed, it is through your efforts (alongside YL, myself, and other contributors) that we now have a scheme for 600 seats across the UK without a single ward split anywhere. This is not to say that such a scheme is actually what I'd recommend - the case for a split is compelling in Sheffield and very strong in a handful of other places - but demonstrating that it is theoretically possible is a great achievement and I salute your contribution to it.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 2, 2016 21:50:53 GMT
Traditional Worcestershire & Herefordshire Hereford 71924 Leominster 71539 Malvern 71935 Worcester 73324 Evesham 72709 Kidderminster & Droitwich 75053 Redditch 77544 Bromsgrove & Halesowen 76336 Stourbridge 73759 Worcestershire & HerefordshireCould I ask the reasoning for placing Kidderminster with Droitwich when Wyre Forest (as is) is already quorate? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 3, 2016 7:06:16 GMT
Traditional Worcestershire & Herefordshire Hereford 71924 Leominster 71539 Malvern 71935 Worcester 73324 Evesham 72709 Kidderminster & Droitwich 75053 Redditch 77544 Bromsgrove & Halesowen 76336 Stourbridge 73759 Worcestershire & HerefordshireCould I ask the reasoning for placing Kidderminster with Droitwich when Wyre Forest (as is) is already quorate? Well, indeed: I'd like to echo Harry's question. And the same goes for Bromsgrove, likewise currently within quota and coterminous with its LA, but carved up in this scheme. ASV's answer, I imagine, will be that he's working to traditional counties. But if so, why isn't the Dudley town area treated with Worcs? (As iainbhx asked above.) And if we're really going for traditional counties*, then a huge swath of south Birmingham, all the way to Yardley, should also be treated with Worcs. *But why? ASV has asked for comments, but this is the question he has failed to answer. I'll ask it again. Given that this review is based on the electorate in 2015, is being carried out in the period 2016-18, and will be applied to an election scheduled for 2020, why on earth would you want to draw up seats based on boundaries that ceased to have effect in 1974? And, arising from this, if you want to go back into the past, why stop at 1974? Why not reach back beyond the boundary rationalizations of 1844? Why not base boundaries within traditional counties on the hundreds and wapentakes of former times? Where will it end? |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 3, 2016 8:30:44 GMT
Traditional counties are a waste of time and space, and I won't bother responding to any old romantic that thinks them of importance.
The problem in Worcestershire is Droitwich. If you leave Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest alone, then you either have to link Droitwich with half of Redditch, or with half of Worcester, both of which are terrible. If you leave Bromsgrove alone than Redditch has to be extended southwards, cutting off Droitwich from Evesham. It is just possible to create 3 seats out of Redditch, Bromsgrove, Wyre Forest, and Droitwich, without splitting any of the towns, but all 3 seats are right on the upper limit. This includes a tightly drawn Bromsgrove & Droitwich seat including the 2 towns and the Dodderhill, Avoncroft and Perryfields wards connecting them. I would be amazed if the Boundary Commission did anything different.
The only alternative I can see, which I used when I did the last review, is to link Redditch with parts of Stratford District (Studley & Alcester etc) which makes good sense on the ground, but obviously has ramifications elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 3, 2016 16:00:28 GMT
John, I agree it's an awkward area but back on 20 Jun (see p10 above) I posted a plan that leaves Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest alone (although I'd call the latter 'Kidderminster') and avoids splitting any of the towns.
My proposed 'Mid Worcs' (i.e Droitwich, Pershore, Evesham) is fine, I think; the revised Redditch seat (renamed 'E Worcs') is an ugly, elongated creation but it's contiguous and within range and I feel it's a price worth paying to get everything else to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 3, 2016 17:30:04 GMT
John, I agree it's an awkward area but back on 20 Jun (see p10 above) I posted a plan that leaves Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest alone (although I'd call the latter 'Kidderminster') and avoids splitting any of the towns. My proposed 'Mid Worcs' (i.e Droitwich, Pershore, Evesham) is fine, I think; the revised Redditch seat (renamed 'E Worcs') is an ugly, elongated creation but it's contiguous and within range and I feel it's a price worth paying to get everything else to work. We will have to differ on this one. Linking the Littletons with Redditch is ridiculous. I suspect if I actually checked all your seats against mine (as I have done the whole country too) there would be few similarities. I don't have an obsession against ward splitting, or seats covering 3 LAs, or orphan wards, and focus rather on not splitting settlements and community and transport links. I also suspect that the Boundary Commission will come up with something different again in most cases. The decision (for both of us) is going to be whether we think our suggestions are better than theirs, and therefore worth submitting an alternative to the consultation. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 3, 2016 18:15:37 GMT
I have been playing with Worcestershire following this discussion and it all fails unless you think the unthinkable. Just to the north of Worcester is the ward of Lovett and North Claines in Wychavon (which is currently part of Worcestershire Mid). At the bottom end of the ward you have the A4733 which creates a line dividing it into two. You can make a complete set of constituencies in Worcestershire, if you put in a submission that calls for that ward to be split along that road, otherwise I have found it impossible!
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 3, 2016 18:36:00 GMT
Having been at the Birmingham hearings for the zombie review, I can say that the Bromsgrove & Droitwich seat was relatively uncontroversial, as was the proposal to "pair" Worcs with Herefordshire and Shropshire. There was a proposal (from the Lib Dems I think) to keep Worcs and Herefs separate but the feeling in the meeting was it was at best quaint and at worst mad. I think the only unresolved questions are marginal ones, such as which ward(s) will be added to the Worcester seat, and which wards will make up the Telford seat. My plan: ukelect.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/2018-review-shropshire-herefordshire-worcestershire/ |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Aug 4, 2016 7:32:36 GMT
John, I agree it's an awkward area but back on 20 Jun (see p10 above) I posted a plan that leaves Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest alone (although I'd call the latter 'Kidderminster') and avoids splitting any of the towns. My proposed 'Mid Worcs' (i.e Droitwich, Pershore, Evesham) is fine, I think; the revised Redditch seat (renamed 'E Worcs') is an ugly, elongated creation but it's contiguous and within range and I feel it's a price worth paying to get everything else to work. I'm with John on this one. I can see why you want to keep Bromsgrove unchanged, but I don't think a seat as bad as that East Worcestershire is a price worth paying for doing so, given that there seem to be feasible plans for Worcestershire which manage to have no really bad seats in the county. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 4, 2016 9:22:28 GMT
Well, the beauty of this forum is that we don't need to persuade each other; we simply put forward contrasting points of view. So, while I agree that my proposed E Worcs seat is far from ideal, I'm happy to differ on the issue of whether it is so very bad as to be unacceptable.
Generally, I'd draw a distinction between a seat that is merely 'bad' (but acceptable if necessary to achieve a satisfactory plan overall) and one that is 'unacceptably bad', meaning that it should not be proposed at all. For the latter, I think I have a higher bar than many contributors to the forum. To give a few examples from the records of the BCE: 'Mersey Banks' and 'Leeds Met & Ossett', both from the zombie review, I'd describe as 'unacceptably bad' and I'd go right back to the drawing board and consider all other options, including ward splits, to avoid recommending such a seat. On the other hand, the currently existing 'Lancaster and Fleetwood' seat, although desperately unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons, I'd describe as being merely 'bad', or perhaps 'very bad', but not 'unacceptably bad'. That is, if I created a plan involving such a seat, I'd spend a lot of time on BA trying to find a way to improve it but in the end, if I couldn't find a better solution, I'd bite the bullet and propose it. The acid test is that I wouldn't split a ward to avoid a 'Lancaster and Fleetwood' seat. (Although, I'm pleased to say, my scheme for Lancs has got rid of this seat anyway.)
Well, to return to the subject at hand, my 'E Worcs' isn't pretty, but it's definitely not so bad as Lancaster & Fleetwood, and there's no alternative that doesn't create worse problems elsewhere (such as disrupting the existing highly satisfactory Bromsgrove seat): so I'm sticking with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 20, 2016 0:45:47 GMT
ZOMBIE REVIEW
SEAT ABOLISHED
Kenilworth & Dorridge
loses Shirley South and Shirley South to Solihull
loses Dorridge & Hockley Heath to Meriden
loses Arden and Stoneleigh & Cubbington to Warwick & Leamington
loses Blythe and Henley-in-Arden and Tanworth-in-Arden and Wootton Wawen to Stratford-upon-Avon
ZOMBIE REVIEW SEATS OUT OF QUOTA
Changes to seat to get on quota
Worcester
gains Powick from Evesham
Evesham
loses Powick to Worcester
loses Upton & Hanley to Malvern & Ledbury
Dudley West
loses Sedgley and Spring Vale to Worcester East
loses Coseley East to Dudley East & Oldbury
gains Netherton, Woodside & St Andrews from Dudley East & Oldbury
gains Wordsley from Stourbridge
Stourbridge
loses Wordsley to Dudley West
gains Hayley Green & Cradley South from Halesowen & Rowley Regis
Birmingham Northfield
loses Longbridge to Birmingham Harborne
gains Brandwood from Birmingham Hall Green
Birmingham Edgbaston
loses Moseley & Kings Heath to Birmingham Hall Green
gains Harborne from Birmingham Harborne
gains Ladywood from Birmingham Ladywood
Birmingham Ladywood
RENAMED Birmingham Hodge Hill
loses Ladywood to Birmingham Edgbaston
gains Shard End from Meriden
Birmingham Perry Barr
gains Newton from Wednesbury
Meriden
loses Shard End to Birmingham Ladywood
gains Sheldon from Solihull
gains Dorridge & Hockley Heath from Kenilworth & Dorridge
gains Coleshill South from North Warwickshire
Coventry South
loses Binley & Willenhall to Coventry North East
loses St Michael's to Coventry North West
gains Woodlands from Coventry North West
Coventry North West
RENAMED Coventry North
loses Woodlands to Coventry South
gains St Michael's from Coventry South
gains Foleshill from Coventry North East
Rugby
loses Coton & Boughton and Hillmorton and Newbold & Brownsover to Nuneaton
gains Long Itchington & Stockton and Radford Semele from Warwick & Leamington
gains Bishop's Itchington and Harbury and Kineton and Red Horse and Wellesbourne East and Wellesbourne West from Stratford-upon-Avon
SEATS WITHIN QUOTA CHANGED
Malvern & Ledbury
gains Upton & Hanley from Evesham
Wolverhampton East
loses Bilston East and Darlaston South to Dudley East & Oldbury
gains Sedgley and Spring Vale
Wednesbury
RENAMED Wednesbury & West Bromwich
loses Newton to Birmingham Perry Barr
loses Princes End to Dudley East & Oldbury
gains Greets Green & Lyng from Dudley East & Oldbury
gains West Bromwich Central from Smethwick
Dudley East & Oldbury
RENAMED Dudley East
loses Oldbury to Smethwick
loses Tividale to Halesowen & Rowley Regis
loses Greets Green & Lyng to Wednesbury
loses Netherton, Woodside & St Andrews to Dudley West
gains Coseley East from Dudley West
gains Princes End from Wednesbury
gains Bilston East and Darlaston South from Worcester East
Halesowen & Rowley Regis
loses Hayley Green & Cradley South to Stourbridge
gains Tividale from Dudley East & Oldbury
Smethwick
loses West Bromwich Central to Wednesbury
gains Oldbury from Dudley East & Oldbury
Birmingham Harborne
RENAMED Birmingham Bartley Green
loses Harborne to Birmingham Edgbaston
gains Longbridge from Birmingham Northfield
Birmingham Hall Green
loses Brandwood to Birmingham Northfield
gains Moseley & Kings Heath from Birmingham Edgbaston
Sutton Coldfield
gains Coleshill North and Water Orton from North Warwickshire
Solihull
loses Sheldon to Meriden
gains Shirley South and Shirley South from Kenilworth & Dorridge
North Warwickshire
loses Coleshill North and Water Orton to Sutton Coldfield
loses Coleshill South to Meriden
gains Arbury and Bulkington from Nuneaton
Coventry North East
RENAMED Coventry East
loses Foleshill to Coventry North West
gains Binley & Willenhall from Coventry South
Nuneaton
loses Arbury and Bulkington to North Warwickshire
gains Coton & Boughton and Hillmorton and Newbold & Brownsover from Rugby
Warwick & Leamington
loses Long Itchington & Stockton and Radford Semele to Rugby
loses Snitterfield to Stratford-upon-Avon
gains Arden and Stoneleigh & Cubbington from Kenilworth & Dorridge
Stratford-upon-Avon
loses Bishop's Itchington and Harbury and Kineton and Red Horse and Wellesbourne East and Wellesbourne West to Rugby
gains Snitterfield from Warwick & Leamington
gains Blythe and Henley-in-Arden and Tanworth-in-Arden and Wootton Wawen from Kenilworth & Dorridge
SEATS UNCHANGED FROM ZOMBIE REVIEW
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke-on-Trent North
Stoke-on-Trent South
West Staffordshire
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Burton
Lichfield
Tamworth
Stafford
Cannock Chase
South Staffordshire
Telford
Bridgnorth, Wellington & The Wrekin
North Shropshire
Shrewsbury & Atcham
Ludlow & Leominster
Hereford & South Herefordshire
Wyre Forest
Bromsgrove & Droitwich
Redditch
Wolverhampton West
Walsall West
Aldridge, Brownhills & Bloxwich
Walsall East
Birmingham Yardley
Birmingham Erdington & Castle Bromwich
|
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Aug 20, 2016 20:43:14 GMT
I give you... West Midlands without Coventry (Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall & Wolverhampton) WITHOUT ANY WARD SPLITS!!!!! Meriden 77342 Solihull 74877 Birmingham Hodge Hill 71261 Birmingham Yardley 73108 Birmingham Springfield 71357 Birmingham Sparkbrook 72783 Birmingham Edgbaston 76801 Birmingham Northfield 71729 Birmingham Ladywood 75875 Birmingham Erdington 77920 Sutton Coldfield 73172 West Bromwich 72858 Smethwick 76859 Halesowen & Rowley Regis 78479 Stourbridge 78320 Dudley South 77748 Dudley North 77914 Wolverhampton West 75031 Wolverhampton East 77161 Walsall West 74015 Walsall North 73930 Walsall East 74198 West MidlandsIf your concern is avoiding splitting wards and avoiding crossing LA boundaries (and if you aren't too fussed about community connections or shapes of seat), you could go one step further and avoid crossing the Birmingham/Solihull boundary altogether: Birmingham Hall Green (for the sake of keeping a current constituency name, although it's really Yardley minus north Yardley): Acocks Green, Hall Green, Sheldon, South Yardley (71,550) Birmingham Hodge Hill: Hodge Hill, Shard End, Stechford and Yardley North, Washwood Heath (71,165) Birmingham Sparkbrook: Bordesley Green, Moseley and Kings Heath, Nechells, Sparkbrook (72,783) Meriden: Bickenhill, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Dorridge and Hockley Heath, Elmdon, Kingshurst and Fordbridge, Knowle, Meriden, Smith's Wood (78,247) Solihull: Blythe, Lyndon, Olton, St Alphege, Shirley x3, Silhill (75,626) |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 21, 2016 1:12:44 GMT
If your concern is avoiding splitting wards and avoiding crossing LA boundaries (and if you aren't too fussed about community connections or shapes of seat), you could go one step further and avoid crossing the Birmingham/Solihull boundary altogether: Birmingham Hall Green (for the sake of keeping a current constituency name, although it's really Yardley minus north Yardley): Acocks Green, Hall Green, Sheldon, South Yardley (71,550) Birmingham Hodge Hill: Hodge Hill, Shard End, Stechford and Yardley North, Washwood Heath (71,165) Birmingham Sparkbrook: Bordesley Green, Moseley and Kings Heath, Nechells, Sparkbrook (72,783) Meriden: Bickenhill, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Dorridge and Hockley Heath, Elmdon, Kingshurst and Fordbridge, Knowle, Meriden, Smith's Wood (78,247) Solihull: Blythe, Lyndon, Olton, St Alphege, Shirley x3, Silhill (75,626) That is fantastic ajthompson! |
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122 
|
Post by rocky on Aug 21, 2016 8:18:23 GMT
That doesn't add up, leaves birmingham erdington and castle Bromwich short
|
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 21, 2016 9:05:29 GMT
That doesn't add up, leaves birmingham erdington and castle Bromwich short No, it's an improvement on my plan of which he quoted |
|
