|
|
Post by Kristofer Keane on Sept 13, 2016 17:49:56 GMT
Birmingham Ladywood is... wow.
My house moves from Warley into Birmingham Edgbaston, which kind of makes sense. Bearwood identifies far more with Birmingham than with Smethwick.
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Sept 13, 2016 18:12:05 GMT
Ladywood is an utter abomination. When I saw earlier Andy had listed the wards in the Birmingham seats I assumed including Tyburn in Ladywood was a mistake. I didn't imagine it was possible. The Boundary commission certainly like to push the boundaries of what's possible Throwing in a Sandwell ward as well into Ladywood in what I'm calling Birmingham Strip. All because they are too feckless to split wards. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 13, 2016 19:11:41 GMT
Putting Droitwich in with Bromsgrove, making a seat stretching from Frankley to the Worcester boundary - did not see that coming !
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Sept 13, 2016 19:28:58 GMT
Putting Droitwich in with Bromsgrove, making a seat stretching from Frankley to the Worcester boundary - did not see that coming ! The 1832 East Worcestershire seat went from Droitwich to Yardley (including Kings Norton, Hall Green, Moseley etc). |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 20:32:13 GMT
UKIP would need a 6.98% swing to win Chelmsley Wood & Solihull North.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 13, 2016 20:37:39 GMT
Cross-posting this from the general review thread to the one region where I can contribute anything substantial to my suggestion. Since most of us seem to think that a significant chunk of the initial proposals are somewhere between poor and an abomination, I'm going to suggest that we use the various regional/national threads to compile a list of reasons why the bad parts of the initial proposals are a very poor fit for the legal criteria, to help those of us who are going to submit alternative proposals, or feed into our respective political party submissions, to make a stronger case for changing the worst recommendations. Just because something is obviously a bad call doesn't mean that we can build a solid enough case to persuade them to change it to something more reasonable, so the better we can articulate our cases for change the more chance we have of getting sensible boundaries out of this review. Just as a reminder, I'll list the legal criteria here, along with a couple of notes on the English commission's official and apparent interpretation in brackets (remember that the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish commissions may interpret things differently - I'd advise checking whatever guidance they've published). The size limits obviously don't need outlining. - Special geographic considerations - size/shape accessibility (interpreted to mean physical geography such as mountains and rivers)
- Local government boundaries (English commission seem to be routinely ignoring LA boundaries but rigidly sticking to ward boundaries. Ward splits said to be only considered with considerable supporting evidence, will follow polling district boundaries, and if possible follow any new ward boundaries finalised after the start of the review)
- Boundaries of existing constituencies (officially no comment on choosing between preserving a few intact and preserving a group with minimal changes to the whole, proposals definitely favour the former over the latter)
- Local ties that would be broken by changes. Note that local ties between areas currently in different constituencies are not mentioned.
On the key issue of ward-splitting, the BCE's thinking is the following: Proposals to split wards are more likely to be accepted if they can undermine the argument in the first paragraph, and demonstrate the kind of circumstances mentioned in the second. So explanations of where/how/why the current proposals cut across local ties or force domino effects would be particularly useful when explaining reasons why certain proposals have problems. The things I thought at first from the part of the region I know best: - Warwick and Leamington have very substantial community ties to each other. The two are separate towns only in a technical sense. The boundary between the two exists on paper, but not in reality. Splitting the two towns unnecessarily both seriously breaks community ties, and results in very large changes to existing boundaries.
- The proposed Coventry West cuts existing community ties within Coventry. The area of Radford covers both a substantial part of Radford ward (moved to Coventry South) and a significant part of Holbrook ward, splitting the two wards into different constituencies means that several hundred households are in a separate constituency to the hub of the local community they belong to, whose hub is now literally just over the constituency border.
- The proposed Coventry West also cuts across the community ties of the Coundon area of Coventry (which spreads across Sherbourne, Bablake, and Radford wards). This area is a coherent community within the city, and the ward boundaries across it are fairly arbitrary.
I suspect most of what can be posted on this for the West Midlands concerns Birmingham and the Black Country, which I definitely don't know well enough to point out where, how, and why the proposals clearly cut across community ties. So fire away with those issues. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433 
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 14, 2016 10:14:55 GMT
Predictably it is a fucking abomination. You simply can't draw the urban West Midlands sensibly without splitting a few wards (and I have bloody well tried). Richard
I don't think it is about ward splitting; or, at least, not wholly.
I don't know your standard of what is drawing W Mids 'sensibly' but I'd argue that, even without ward splits, it's definitely possible to produce a better plan.
I posted my version on 21 Jun (back on p7), with 25 non-split seats for the whole W Mids former met county.
Of those 25 seats, 8 cross borough boundaries (compared with 11 in the BCE plan); and the seats are generally much more logical and compact than in the BCE plan. Also, my plan is, overall, at least as respectful to existing boundaries as the BCE's, especially in the Walsall/Wolverhampton area. I know I'm indulging in the sin of pride here, but I was actually pretty happy with that plan and I'm thinking about how I might take it forward.
I feel that a few comments here (not just yours) have ascribed all the defects in the BCE plan to its decision not to split wards; but I don't think view this does full justice to the issues involved. And, just a cautionary note: it's perfectly possible to produce some pretty dire plans with ward splits galore. Look at the Scottish Commission's plan in the zombie and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 14, 2016 11:33:17 GMT
Predictably it is a fucking abomination. You simply can't draw the urban West Midlands sensibly without splitting a few wards (and I have bloody well tried). Richard
I don't think it is about ward splitting; or, at least, not wholly.
I don't know your standard of what is drawing W Mids 'sensibly' but I'd argue that, even without ward splits, it's definitely possible to produce a better plan.
I posted my version on 21 Jun (back on p7), with 25 non-split seats for the whole W Mids former met county.
Of those 25 seats, 8 cross borough boundaries (compared with 11 in the BCE plan); and the seats are generally much more logical and compact than in the BCE plan. Also, my plan is, overall, at least as respectful to existing boundaries as the BCE's, especially in the Walsall/Wolverhampton area. I know I'm indulging in the sin of pride here, but I was actually pretty happy with that plan and I'm thinking about how I might take it forward.
I feel that a few comments here (not just yours) have ascribed all the defects in the BCE plan to its decision not to split wards; but I don't think view this does full justice to the issues involved. And, just a cautionary note: it's perfectly possible to produce some pretty dire plans with ward splits galore. Look at the Scottish Commission's plan in the zombie and you'll see what I mean.
Your effort was certainly much better than the boundary commission's and probably about as good as can be achieved but still objectionable in many ways. I simply don't get the reluctance to split a small number of wards which would solve so many of the problems. |
|
|
|
Post by crossinthebox on Sept 14, 2016 11:58:16 GMT
#Newbie so be nice
Evesham and South Warwickshire is a horror show. Even accepting the need for a cross-county constituency, the wards of choice to lump in with the vale of Evesham should surely be Bidford/Alcester ones with plenty of fruit farms a la Evesham. The very shape of the constituency rivals Henley and Thame for obvious wrongness, and having Hanbury and some villages the other side of the M40 in the same constituency is eye opening to say the least.
Moving Shipston away from Stratford is nonsense, as is moving Welford ON AVON away from Stratford ON AVON...
10 minutes with the back of a fag packet and the BC's own ward data came up with a pleasing list of 7 wards from Stratford and Warwick to move to Evesham and S Warks, and 7 to go the other way, all rules still respected. And it just LOOKS so much nicer!
Would probably have to rename Evesham and West Warks though which is a bit lame since that is probably the first time in recorded history the phrase "West Warwickshire" has ever been used
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 14, 2016 12:09:10 GMT
Richard
I don't think it is about ward splitting; or, at least, not wholly.
I don't know your standard of what is drawing W Mids 'sensibly' but I'd argue that, even without ward splits, it's definitely possible to produce a better plan.
I posted my version on 21 Jun (back on p7), with 25 non-split seats for the whole W Mids former met county.
Of those 25 seats, 8 cross borough boundaries (compared with 11 in the BCE plan); and the seats are generally much more logical and compact than in the BCE plan. Also, my plan is, overall, at least as respectful to existing boundaries as the BCE's, especially in the Walsall/Wolverhampton area. I know I'm indulging in the sin of pride here, but I was actually pretty happy with that plan and I'm thinking about how I might take it forward.
I feel that a few comments here (not just yours) have ascribed all the defects in the BCE plan to its decision not to split wards; but I don't think view this does full justice to the issues involved. And, just a cautionary note: it's perfectly possible to produce some pretty dire plans with ward splits galore. Look at the Scottish Commission's plan in the zombie and you'll see what I mean.
Your effort was certainly much better than the boundary commission's and probably about as good as can be achieved but still objectionable in many ways. I simply don't get the reluctance to split a small number of wards which would solve so many of the problems. But not all. The tight quota ensures that some problems will remain. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 14, 2016 22:41:53 GMT
UKIP would need a 5.71% swing to win the new Stoke North constituency.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Sept 14, 2016 22:57:18 GMT
The Wells notionals for the Potteries seats seem a bit off actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 16, 2016 8:02:39 GMT
#Newbie so be nice Evesham and South Warwickshire is a horror show. Even accepting the need for a cross-county constituency, the wards of choice to lump in with the vale of Evesham should surely be Bidford/Alcester ones with plenty of fruit farms a la Evesham. The very shape of the constituency rivals Henley and Thame for obvious wrongness, and having Hanbury and some villages the other side of the M40 in the same constituency is eye opening to say the least. Moving Shipston away from Stratford is nonsense, as is moving Welford ON AVON away from Stratford ON AVON... 10 minutes with the back of a fag packet and the BC's own ward data came up with a pleasing list of 7 wards from Stratford and Warwick to move to Evesham and S Warks, and 7 to go the other way, all rules still respected. And it just LOOKS so much nicer! Would probably have to rename Evesham and West Warks though which is a bit lame since that is probably the first time in recorded history the phrase "West Warwickshire" has ever been used. It isn't necessary to cross the Worcestershire/Warwickshire boundary. I have a perfectly good plan that doesn't, and doesn't split Warwick & Leamington either.
I think I will submit my plan to the Boundary Commission for the West Midlands because the whole thing is so awful. This involves ward splits in Birmingham, and although not technically necessary a ward split in Dudley as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 16, 2016 17:05:25 GMT
The Worcester-Warwick border crossing has become necessary in the commission's plan because you have to take something out of Warwickshire. They've only put one ward into the Solihull seat, so more has to go out in to Worcestershire.
You can tweak their Worcestershire and Herefordshire to work without the bit of Warwickshire, including Bromsgrove and Droitwich, which with some knowledge of the area I prefer to the alternative creation of Redditch and villages around Evesham.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 16, 2016 18:46:44 GMT
The Worcester-Warwick border crossing has become necessary in the commission's plan because you have to take something out of Warwickshire. They've only put one ward into the Solihull seat, so more has to go out in to Worcestershire. You can tweak their Worcestershire and Herefordshire to work without the bit of Warwickshire, including Bromsgrove and Droitwich, which with some knowledge of the area I prefer to the alternative creation of Redditch and villages around Evesham. The reason it's necessary is because they've prioritised keeping Coventry North East intact, and so can't find a way to make the necessary cross-county constituency be with Coventry rather than Worcestershire without splitting a ward. The least change option for Warwickshire is almost certainly something pretty close to the Coventry and Warwickshire plan I came up with on the first couple of pages of this thread (or, rather, close to that plan as amended by helpful suggestions from others - mostly Pete Whitehead). |
|
|
|
Post by crossinthebox on Sept 28, 2016 10:54:08 GMT
Having grown up on the Warwicks/Worcs border I'm relaxed abut being lumped in with Worcs. Coventry is not Warwickshire... :-)
I have given it more thought and there are several more solid reasons to rubbish the proposed Evesham and S Warks one. Roads and schools are much better aligned with my solution, as well as the other stuff I mentioned. I will be submitting some comments to the BC, and some maps which show it just looks 1000% better...
I am trying to stay focused, but can't help thinking moving Studley into Redditch makes more sense as well (it virtually merges into it anyway on the ground), then the boil on the bottom of Redditch which is the Astwood bank and Feckenham ward can go back to Evesham where it will surely feel more at home.
But that's 2 cross-border wards so they won't like that I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 28, 2016 15:00:08 GMT
crossinthebox, as far as I am concerned, Coventry should be considered as part of (eastern) Warwickshire for this purpose, especially when the University of Warwick has its main campus there and when it links better with it than with the Black Country (which includes the western part of what was Warwickshire, admittedly, as well as former parts of Staffordshire and Worcestershire).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 28, 2016 15:25:28 GMT
I don't think any part of historic Warwickshire is in the Black Country
|
|
|
|
Post by crossinthebox on Sept 28, 2016 15:45:36 GMT
crossinthebox , as far as I am concerned, Coventry should be considered as part of (eastern) Warwickshire for this purpose, especially when the University of Warwick has its main campus there and when it links better with it than with the Black Country (which includes the western part of what was Warwickshire, admittedly, as well as former parts of Staffordshire and Worcestershire). Warwickshire is not like Yorkshire or Cornwall with a strong unifying identity. Pre 1974 (I think?) Cov and Birmingham were part of it, now it has a strange top bit with lovely spa resorts such as Bedworth and Nuneaton...there's no real connection between rural S Warks and the Northern bits
My point is that the bit of Warks I grew up in was very much of a piece with East Worcs so I am fine with that. Just not the very odd way they have done it ignoring roads, schools, businesses and even the very shape of the constituency
Have you seen the proposed Evesham and S Warks? Even the boundary commission make no attempt to justify it in their own report as far as I can see!
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 28, 2016 17:20:44 GMT
I have, and it does not connect properly-the Boundary Commission failed to justify it because as far as they were concerned it was the best constituency in the area they could come up with once they had dealt with all the others they could find links for.
|
|
