Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on May 11, 2016 15:36:02 GMT
The BCE has been very clear that the old wards will be used, and I'm not sure that the legislation allows any discretion about this anyway. If you don't mind tinkering with the city boundaries (putting two Brum wards in seats otherwise outside the city; and two non-Brum wards in seats otherwise within the city) then you can do it without any ward splits at all - which is certainly what I'd advocate. If you want to treat the city boundary as sacrosanct, then you have to deal with the issue that the city's entitlement is 9.19, meaning that the seats have to be well above average size. And this is a problem because Birmingham wards tend to want to combine in groups of 4; and while some such groups are within the permitted range, they will fall at the lower end of it. So the more 4-ward seats you create, the more you need other seats at the top of the range to balance them out, and the ward sizes don't work for this. You can create one five-ward seat somewhere in the Ladywood/Edgbaston area; there's scope for variation about the exact composition of this seat (I went for simply adding the Selly Oak ward to the existing Edgbaston seat) but my point is that I don't think you can create more than one five-ward seat. The upshot of this is that you're looking at a really messy map with multiple splits - I think at least four in Birmingham itself, plus a fifth somewhere in the Dudley/Sandwell area (probably in Dudley) as a knock-on consequence of not including a Sandwell ward in Brum. It's not Sandwell itself that's the problem because you can give it three (rather small) seats to itself, without ward splits; but then Dudley won't work without a split (and even with it, is really ugly). So then you're looking at rescuing Dudley by crossing over into Worcs or Staffs, and thus disrupting the current very sensible adjoining seats in these counties (Bromsgrove, Wyre Forest aka Kidderminster, S Staffs) - all of which are within range and could otherwise have been left unchanged. It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to to avoid taking some relatively minor liberties with the Birmingham city boundary. It's always possible, of course, that I've missed some relatively straightforward solution: but it's a couple of months now since the ward stats were published, and no one has yet posted one. Oh I know that there's little point submitting proposals on the new boundaries, except that I'm hoping that eventually MPs will see sense and change the law to allow new boundaries to be incorporated into boundary reviews at the earliest opportunity, rather than the artificial and stale system that is worked to at the moment. My West Midlands plan is as follows: Birmingham 9 seats, with 3 splits; Solihull 2 seats, with 1 split; West Bromwich 3 seats, possibly with no splits; rest of the Black Country 8 seats, with a minimum of 1 split, the one in the Stourbridge area. I wouldn't describe it as a lot of trouble. The seats that crossed the Birmingham boundary at the zombie review were almost all unacceptable imo, particularly where they involved orphan wards. If you want to cross the boundary there are a few suitable places, but you should try not to split communities while you're doing it. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 11, 2016 15:41:21 GMT
Actually I think it's all of Aston, making quite a good Aston & Erdington seat imo. Certainly better than putting a chunk of Erdington into Hodge Hill. And, speaking as someone who lives in Oscott ward, I think most people here prefer to be in Perry Barr. Adrian - I'm afraid Oscott is one of the two wards swapped out in my plan. You end up in Aldridge. Sorry. And we wonder why democracy's in trouble! |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 11, 2016 15:51:45 GMT
Even if the law allowed the BCE to use the new wards if they wished, I don't think it would be practical in Birmingham. The new wards are still just proposals at this stage, it will be many months before the new boundaries are set in stone and by then the provisional parliamentary proposals would already have been released.
On the other hand in somewhere like Sheffield I agree that the new wards should have been used as there the new wards are already in operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 11, 2016 16:05:11 GMT
Adrian
I doff my cap to you for managing Birmingham with only three splits, which is better than I could manage.
You can give Solihull two whole seats without a split (just swap Elmdon and Blythe). But Dudley is really bad if you can't cross the border into Sandwell; even with a ward split, you still end up putting a boundary right through the middle of Stourbridge. (Whereas, in the boundary-crossing plan, Stourbridge is all kept together.) As I said earlier in the Scotland thread, I can see an argument for ward-splitting if it keeps communities together; but splitting a ward AND dividing a community is the worst of both worlds.
I agree that there's a stronger case in Birmingham for sticking to the city boundary than there is in Sheffield; but even so, a minimum of four ward splits (compared with zero) is a lot, in my view, especially if it doesn't avoid awkward seats elsewhere.
We need to see rival plans so we can make a fair comparison across the W Mids conurbation as a whole.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 11, 2016 16:40:45 GMT
Of course the split of Stourbridge isn't ideal, but it only means that about 10% of the town would be in the Brierley Hill seat. My attitude in these cases is the old-fashioned one that borough boundaries are a fact of life and we have to work with them. The best way to do this in my opinion is to delegate the boundary work to the councils. For example, say to Sandwell: "You're getting three seats, you decide how to divvy them up. And if you're having trouble you can work with neighbouring boroughs if you like."
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 11, 2016 16:50:09 GMT
Even if the law allowed the BCE to use the new wards if they wished, I don't think it would be practical in Birmingham. The new wards are still just proposals at this stage, it will be many months before the new boundaries are set in stone and by then the provisional parliamentary proposals would already have been released. On the other hand in somewhere like Sheffield I agree that the new wards should have been used as there the new wards are already in operation. You have a different definition of "practical" to mine. The new Birmingham wards will be finalised on the 6th of September. What isn't practical is for Birmingham council, and Birmingham's MP's, to have to deal with mismatched boundaries for 5 or 10 years. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 11, 2016 19:35:28 GMT
I think you mean the final recommendations are currently scheduled to be published on 6th Sept, even then the actual Statutory Instrument won't become law before 2017. Meanwhile the BCE draft proposals are also scheduled to be released in Sept 2016, so how exactly do you propose they take the new ward boundaries into account?
Where do you draw the line? There are always councils in the process of being reviewed so whatever cut off date you pick there will always be somewhere that just misses it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 21:35:37 GMT
Was reminded of this earlier..  |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on May 11, 2016 23:07:13 GMT
^ Was that a genuine proposal from the zombie review? Good Lord! Way to shaft Burslem. I've heard of that due to its status as the home of Port Vale FC, but I only know Tunstall as the surname of a somewhat successful Scottish chanteuse from the previous decade. I've been on a bus through the village of Madeley (well, *that* Madeley, at any rate) and I saw nothing to suggest it deserves the poor treatment it clearly got there in the proposed name.
My own attempts at this region saw something hideous happen in the eastern, more built-up half of the map ('Mid Warwickshire', anyone??), and I was left with 3 undersized seats in Birmingham by working from the periphery inwards. Even allowing for ward splits, that plan probably couldn't be salvaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 11, 2016 23:13:37 GMT
That sort of seat could work but only if it was 'North Potteries BC' - cutting out Madeley, Halmerend and Audley and Bignall End, and including Biddulph. But I suspect the BCE wouldn't go for that on the 'three authorities' unofficial rule.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on May 11, 2016 23:45:24 GMT
'Kidsgrove and Biddulph' would at least include the names of two towns I am vaguely aware of due to their football clubs (Athletic and Victoria). Those boundaries would still split Burslem for no good reason, mind.
Not the distinction really matters nowadays, but it feels more like a CC than a BC to me too.
|
|
|
|
Post by krollo on May 14, 2016 15:32:17 GMT
On the above, I was trying to work a nice solution for Staffordshire that avoided Stoke South and Stone, which has alliteration and almost nothing else going for it. The only way round I could see was something along the lines of Stoke North and Biddulph, which in terms of community links is probably somewhat better, if not perfect. That then forced Moorlands to move down to Uttoxeter; there was little choice with Tamworth, and to then avoid splitting Lichfield down the middle I went for Burton and Stone. While a bit odd, it's probably worth having a few slightly strange seats like that if demographically similar areas can be kept together as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on May 14, 2016 16:35:26 GMT
Two key things Stoke South and Stone has going for it are geographical proximity and transport links, neither of which Burton and Stone has. Plus Stoke South and Stone is, I think, the minimum change option.
I don't think the commission are meant to consider demographics or voting patterns in their decisions. Community ties yes, but even there, presumably some Stone residents work or shop in Stoke, more so than in Burton.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 14, 2016 16:46:14 GMT
Yes, "demographically similar areas" sounds like social engineering at worst, or voter packing at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 15, 2016 20:05:48 GMT
My proposals for Warwickshire & the city of Coventry.
1. Coventry North East. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 72,135.
2. Coventry South. As the current Coventry South plus Whoberley ward. Electorate: 78,059.
3. Coventry North West & Coleshill. As the current Coventry North West minus Whoberley ward, but plus the North Warwickshire wards of Fillongley, Coleshill North/South, Water Orton, and Curdworth. Electorate: 73,033.
4. Nuneaton. The Nuneaton & Bedworth wards of Whitestone, Attleborough, Wem Brook, Bar Pool, St Nicolas, Weddington, Abbey, Camp Hill, and Bulkington, plus the Rugby wards of Wolvey & Shilton, Revel & Binley Woods, Woolston & The Lawfords, Clifton, Newton & Churchover, Hillmorton, Coton & Broughton, and Newbold & Brownsover. Electorate: 76,083.
5. North East Warwickshire. All North Warwickshire and all Nuneaton & Bedworth wards not included in Nuneaton or Coventry North West & Coleshill; the main town is Bedworth. Electorate: 76,614.
6. Rugby & Kenilworth. The Rugby wards of Benn, New Bilton, Eastlands, Paddox, Dunsmore, Leam Valley, Admirals & Cawston, Rokeby & Overslade, and Bilton, plus the Warwick wards of Abbey, St John's, Park Hill, Radford Semele, and Stoneleigh & Cubbington, and the Stratford-on-Avon wards of Long Itchington & Stockton, Southam North/South, and Napton & Fenny Compton. Electorate: 78,088.
7. Warwick & Leamington. As the current Warwick & Leamington constituency plus the Warwick ward of Arden and the Stratford-on-Avon ward of Smitterfield. Electorate: 76,303.
8. Stratford-on-Avon. As the current Stratford-on-Avon constituency minus Smitterfield ward, but plus the wards of Wellesbourne East/West, Bishop's Itchington, Harbury, Kineton, and Red Horse. Electorate: 78,450.
The abolished constituencies in this scenario are Rugby and Kenilworth & Southam, even though the communities Kenilworth and Southam are themselves still united within a resurrected Rugby & Kenilworth constituency, since Stratford-on-Avon only has to expand the southwestern villages of the aforementioned Kenilworth & Southam to be in quota. This proposed version of Nuneaton will be very different from the current Nuneaton constituency.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 15, 2016 22:43:29 GMT
My proposals for Warwickshire & the city of Coventry. 1. Coventry North East. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 72,135. 2. Coventry South. As the current Coventry South plus Whoberley ward. Electorate: 78,059. 3. Coventry North West & Coleshill. As the current Coventry North West minus Whoberley ward, but plus the North Warwickshire wards of Fillongley, Coleshill North/South, Water Orton, and Curdworth. Electorate: 73,033. 4. Nuneaton. The Nuneaton & Bedworth wards of Whitestone, Attleborough, Wem Brook, Bar Pool, St Nicolas, Weddington, Abbey, Camp Hill, and Bulkington, plus the Rugby wards of Wolvey & Shilton, Revel & Binley Woods, Woolston & The Lawfords, Clifton, Newton & Churchover, Hillmorton, Coton & Broughton, and Newbold & Brownsover. Electorate: 76,083. 5. North East Warwickshire. All North Warwickshire and all Nuneaton & Bedworth wards not included in Nuneaton or Coventry North West & Coleshill; the main town is Bedworth. Electorate: 76,614. 6. Rugby & Kenilworth. The Rugby wards of Benn, New Bilton, Eastlands, Paddox, Dunsmore, Leam Valley, Admirals & Cawston, Rokeby & Overslade, and Bilton, plus the Warwick wards of Abbey, St John's, Park Hill, Radford Semele, and Stoneleigh & Cubbington, and the Stratford-on-Avon wards of Long Itchington & Stockton, Southam North/South, and Napton & Fenny Compton. Electorate: 78,088. 7. Warwick & Leamington. As the current Warwick & Leamington constituency plus the Warwick ward of Arden and the Stratford-on-Avon ward of Smitterfield. Electorate: 76,303. 8. Stratford-on-Avon. As the current Stratford-on-Avon constituency minus Smitterfield ward, but plus the wards of Wellesbourne East/West, Bishop's Itchington, Harbury, Kineton, and Red Horse. Electorate: 78,450. The abolished constituencies in this scenario are Rugby and Kenilworth & Southam, even though the communities Kenilworth and Southam are themselves still united within a resurrected Rugby & Kenilworth constituency, since Stratford-on-Avon only has to expand the southwestern villages of the aforementioned Kenilworth & Southam to be in quota. This proposed version of Nuneaton will be very different from the current Nuneaton constituency. This plan manages to split up both Nuneaton and Rugby (referring to the actual towns here). Though a lot less so than you would expect from a plan that combines Coventry with anywhere to its north or east. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on May 18, 2016 18:20:52 GMT
My West Midlands plan is as follows: Birmingham 9 seats, with 3 splits; Solihull 2 seats, with 1 split; West Bromwich 3 seats, possibly with no splits; rest of the Black Country 8 seats, with a minimum of 1 split, the one in the Stourbridge area. I wouldn't describe it as a lot of trouble. The seats that crossed the Birmingham boundary at the zombie review were almost all unacceptable imo, particularly where they involved orphan wards. If you want to cross the boundary there are a few suitable places, but you should try not to split communities while you're doing it. Have you posted that plan somewhere? Anyway, I thought I'd have a go at the Black Country boroughs. Given comments about splitting Stourbridge, one aim was to avoid doing that. I did split one Dudley ward; the number of cases where a naturalish looking group of wards was just outside the target range made it tempting to split more. Because not splitting Stourbridge and putting Halesowen in a wholly Dudley seat seems a difficult combination to achieve, I basically ignored the Dudley/Sandwell border. I'm rather aware that I'm an outsider to the Black Country and don't really know the area at all, so this is probably full of pitchfork bait. Comments welcome anyway.  West Bromwich South & Smethwick (71,479) (or perhaps just West Bromwich & Smethwick) West Bromwich North & Wednesbury (72,374) Halesowen & Warley (73,796) Dudley Castle & Rowley Regis (77,985) Stourbridge (79,148-x) Existing seat plus the eastern part of Brierley Hill ward, split along the railway line. Dudley West (70,500+x) Includes the rest of Brierley Hill (not shown on the map). Wolverhampton South (71,392) Existing South-East plus Penn, still including one Dudley ward. Wolverhampton West (75,081) Existing South-West less Penn, plus two wards north of the centre. Wolverhampton East & Willenhall (71,296) Merger of the rumps of Wolverhampton NE and Walsall N. Possibly "Walsall" should still be in the name somehow. Walsall (72,438) Existing Walsall South plus Blakenall. Aldridge & Bloxwich (76,572) Existing Aldridge-Brownhills plus the two Bloxwich wards. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 18, 2016 19:56:58 GMT
I've regretfully come to the conclusion that you can't assign 20 seats to Birmingham and the Black Country without ward splitting. However, I have come up with a version that requires only one ward split, only puts one Birmingham ward in a non-Birmingham seat and in many cases doesn't even produce particularly loathsome Birmingham seats.  Stourbridge (78320) - gains Brierley Hill and Hayley Green & Cradley South. Loses Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood. Getting an eight-ward Dudley seat is key to making the numbers work further down the line and as an added benefit it actually looks alright. Dudley South (71054) - loses Brierley Hill, gains Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood and Gornal Halesowen & Rowley Regis (75822) - loses Hayley Green & Cradley South, gains Tividale and Langley Smethwick & West Bromwich (78375) - successor to Warley. Loses Langley, gains Greets Green & Lyng, Newton and West Bromwich Central Wednesbury (73177) - successor to West Bromwich West, renaming not technically necessary but would be advisable anyway. Loses Tividale, gains Friar Park and Hateley Heath Dudley North (77652) - loses Gornal, gains Coseley Heath, Ettingshall and Spring Vale. May need to be Dudley North & Wolverhampton South. Wolverhampton West (74882) - renamed South West, gains Blakenhall and Oxley Wolverhampton East (77837) - renamed North East, loses Oxley, gains East Park, Bilston North and Bilston East Walsall North (72944) - gains Pelsall Walsall South (74203) - loses Pheasey Park Farm gains Charlemont with Grove Vale and Great Barr with Yew Tree. Neither of those wards has much to do with Walsall, but it's not really any worse than having Pheasey Park Farm in there. Aldridge-Brownhills (75866) - loses Pelsall, gains Pheasey Park Farm and Oscott Sutton Coldfield (73172) - unchanged Birmingham Erdington (77920) - gains Perry Barr Birmingham Ladywood (82844-x) - loses Nechells, gains Handsworth Wood and Lozells & East Handsworth. Also needs to lose part of either Ladywood or Aston to Birmingham Small Heath. I haven't checked the numbers, but ideally I'd want to split Ladywood along Broad Street. Birmingham Small Heath (72783+x) - the successor to Birmingham Hall Green (which nevertheless provides less than 50% of the electors.) The wards of Bordesley Green, Moseley & Kings Heath, Nechells and Sparkbrook. Springfield would be a better fit than Moseley, but you need its 19000 electors for a south Birmingham seat. Birmingham Hodge Hill (71165) - loses Bordesley Green, gains Stechford & Yardley North. Not ideal, but there's no way to make an all-Birmingham seat which includes both Sheldon and Stechford. Birmingham Yardley (71550) - loses Stechford & Yardley North, gains Hall Green. I suppose you could rename it to Birmingham Acock's Green if you particularly like restoring long-vanished constituency names. Birmingham Brandwood (71357) - successor to Birmingham Selly Oak. Loses Selly Oak and Bournville, gains King's Norton and Springfield. Again, if you like historical names you could go for Birmingham King's Norton, but as King's Norton isn't central to the seat I'd prefer not to. Birmingham Northfield (71729) - loses King's Norton, gains Bournville Birmingham Edgbaston (76801) - gains Selly Oak Overall, I think the notable thing is how little the surviving seats are changed by this plan. Outside Birmingham I think all the seats are defensible (I'll admit Sandwell isn't particularly pretty, but Smethwick is kept together and the wards put into Walsall South are peripheral and fairly self-contained. Inside Birmingham, there's no doubt that the Oscott/Perry Barr situation is ugly, but I stole the idea from islington so it isn't any worse than his attempt. I'm not keen on the Sparkbrook/Springhill split, but again islington's map also has this. It can however be avoided if you add Rubery to Northfield, swap King's Norton for Bournville and swap Springhill with Moseley & King's Heath. This would seem to me to make much more sense on the ground, so it's a question of how you feel about crossing a county boundary. Finally, you've got the division of Yardley. Again, it's also in islington's plan. If you want to avoid it you can leave Hodge Hill unchanged, add Hall Green to Small Heath (which by this time you may as well call Hall Green) and then just hold bac a few thousand electors from Hall Green ward for the Yardley seat. Which would be nicer, but YMMW as to whether it's worth a ward split. Personally I think I'd make the changes involving Rubery, but I'd just live with the Yardley split. I think that the minimum change approach taken here and the close resemblance of these seats to their predecessors provides, according to the discussion of the rules ongoing in other threads, a justification for the BCE to split a ward. As much as ward-splitting should be a last resort, I find it hard to believe that this approach is less disruptive than dividing Solihull in two. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 18, 2016 20:11:08 GMT
My West Midlands plan is as follows: Birmingham 9 seats, with 3 splits; Solihull 2 seats, with 1 split; West Bromwich 3 seats, possibly with no splits; rest of the Black Country 8 seats, with a minimum of 1 split, the one in the Stourbridge area. I wouldn't describe it as a lot of trouble. The seats that crossed the Birmingham boundary at the zombie review were almost all unacceptable imo, particularly where they involved orphan wards. If you want to cross the boundary there are a few suitable places, but you should try not to split communities while you're doing it. Have you posted that plan somewhere? Anyway, I thought I'd have a go at the Black Country boroughs. Given comments about splitting Stourbridge, one aim was to avoid doing that. I did split one Dudley ward; the number of cases where a naturalish looking group of wards was just outside the target range made it tempting to split more. Because not splitting Stourbridge and putting Halesowen in a wholly Dudley seat seems a difficult combination to achieve, I basically ignored the Dudley/Sandwell border. I'm rather aware that I'm an outsider to the Black Country and don't really know the area at all, so this is probably full of pitchfork bait. Comments welcome anyway. West Bromwich South & Smethwick (71,479) (or perhaps just West Bromwich & Smethwick) West Bromwich North & Wednesbury (72,374) Halesowen & Warley (73,796) Dudley Castle & Rowley Regis (77,985) Stourbridge (79,148-x) Existing seat plus the eastern part of Brierley Hill ward, split along the railway line. Dudley West (70,500+x) Includes the rest of Brierley Hill (not shown on the map). Wolverhampton South (71,392) Existing South-East plus Penn, still including one Dudley ward. Wolverhampton West (75,081) Existing South-West less Penn, plus two wards north of the centre. Wolverhampton East & Willenhall (71,296) Merger of the rumps of Wolverhampton NE and Walsall N. Possibly "Walsall" should still be in the name somehow. Walsall (72,438) Existing Walsall South plus Blakenall. Aldridge & Bloxwich (76,572) Existing Aldridge-Brownhills plus the two Bloxwich wards. YL - I'm not saying this is a bad plan. What I am saying is that it raises at least as many questions as it answers. First question: If the Birmingham boundary is so sacred, why isn't the same respect accorded to the Sandwell boundary? This is an especially pertinent question in view of the fact that Sandwell, unlike Birmingham, can actually be divided into a whole number of seats without ward-splitting. (There are several ways of doing it; for instance, your plan above could be adapted by combining the Sandwell bits of your two boundary-crossing seats above into 'Warley and Rowley Regis' (71631).) It's true that you then run straight into the Stourbridge problem as previously discussed; but if it's acceptable to solve this problem by crossing the Sandwell boundary, as in your plan, why is it less acceptable to solve it by crossing the Birmingham boundary? (You could answer this question by pointing out that you are crossing fewer LA boundaries that I am. This is true. But you are splitting more wards than I am. Which brings me to my ...) Second question: How many ward splits do we need anyway? At least one in Dudley, for sure. But how many in Brum? There have to be at least three (unless you want to split a ward three ways); but I don't think anyone has yet posted a plan that achieves this. And until someone puts forward such a plan, it's hard to make a fair comparison with the non-splitting alternative. However, in a constructive spirit I have been trying myself to come up with a plan for Brum that awards nine whole seats to the city with only three ward splits. The good news: (for ward-splitters) - I've managed it. The bad news: It's truly terrible. The highlight, or lowlight, is a seat (heaven knows what you'd call it) consisting of Moseley, Sparkbrook, Nechells, Aston and about half of either Perry Barr or Lozells. 'Birmingham Central', in a way, I suppose, except that it doesn't actually include the city centre. Now, I'm not claiming that the non-split plan was by any means perfect, but I am saying that it didn't contain anything half so horrible as this. A couple of the other seats are pretty awkward as well. I'll post it if anyone is interested. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 18, 2016 20:42:14 GMT
I've regretfully come to the conclusion that you can't assign 20 seats to Birmingham and the Black Country without ward splitting. However, I have come up with a version that requires only one ward split, only puts one Birmingham ward in a non-Birmingham seat and in many cases doesn't even produce particularly loathsome Birmingham seats. Stourbridge (78320) - gains Brierley Hill and Hayley Green & Cradley South. Loses Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood. Getting an eight-ward Dudley seat is key to making the numbers work further down the line and as an added benefit it actually looks alright. Dudley South (71054) - loses Brierley Hill, gains Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood and Gornal Halesowen & Rowley Regis (75822) - loses Hayley Green & Cradley South, gains Tividale and Langley Smethwick & West Bromwich (78375) - successor to Warley. Loses Langley, gains Greets Green & Lyng, Newton and West Bromwich Central Wednesbury (73177) - successor to West Bromwich West, renaming not technically necessary but would be advisable anyway. Loses Tividale, gains Friar Park and Hateley Heath Dudley North (77652) - loses Gornal, gains Coseley Heath, Ettingshall and Spring Vale. May need to be Dudley North & Wolverhampton South. Wolverhampton West (74882) - renamed South West, gains Blakenhall and Oxley Wolverhampton East (77837) - renamed North East, loses Oxley, gains East Park, Bilston North and Bilston East Walsall North (72944) - gains Pelsall Walsall South (74203) - loses Pheasey Park Farm gains Charlemont with Grove Vale and Great Barr with Yew Tree. Neither of those wards has much to do with Walsall, but it's not really any worse than having Pheasey Park Farm in there. Aldridge-Brownhills (75866) - loses Pelsall, gains Pheasey Park Farm and Oscott Sutton Coldfield (73172) - unchanged Birmingham Erdington (77920) - gains Perry Barr Birmingham Ladywood (82844-x) - loses Nechells, gains Handsworth Wood and Lozells & East Handsworth. Also needs to lose part of either Ladywood or Aston to Birmingham Small Heath. I haven't checked the numbers, but ideally I'd want to split Ladywood along Broad Street. Birmingham Small Heath (72783+x) - the successor to Birmingham Hall Green (which nevertheless provides less than 50% of the electors.) The wards of Bordesley Green, Moseley & Kings Heath, Nechells and Sparkbrook. Springfield would be a better fit than Moseley, but you need its 19000 electors for a south Birmingham seat. Birmingham Hodge Hill (71165) - loses Bordesley Green, gains Stechford & Yardley North. Not ideal, but there's no way to make an all-Birmingham seat which includes both Sheldon and Stechford. Birmingham Yardley (71550) - loses Stechford & Yardley North, gains Hall Green. I suppose you could rename it to Birmingham Acock's Green if you particularly like restoring long-vanished constituency names. Birmingham Brandwood (71357) - successor to Birmingham Selly Oak. Loses Selly Oak and Bournville, gains King's Norton and Springfield. Again, if you like historical names you could go for Birmingham King's Norton, but as King's Norton isn't central to the seat I'd prefer not to. Birmingham Northfield (71729) - loses King's Norton, gains Bournville Birmingham Edgbaston (76801) - gains Selly Oak Overall, I think the notable thing is how little the surviving seats are changed by this plan. Outside Birmingham I think all the seats are defensible (I'll admit Sandwell isn't particularly pretty, but Smethwick is kept together and the wards put into Walsall South are peripheral and fairly self-contained. Inside Birmingham, there's no doubt that the Oscott/Perry Barr situation is ugly, but I stole the idea from islington so it isn't any worse than his attempt. I'm not keen on the Sparkbrook/Springhill split, but again islington's map also has this. It can however be avoided if you add Rubery to Northfield, swap King's Norton for Bournville and swap Springhill with Moseley & King's Heath. This would seem to me to make much more sense on the ground, so it's a question of how you feel about crossing a county boundary. Finally, you've got the division of Yardley. Again, it's also in islington's plan. If you want to avoid it you can leave Hodge Hill unchanged, add Hall Green to Small Heath (which by this time you may as well call Hall Green) and then just hold bac a few thousand electors from Hall Green ward for the Yardley seat. Which would be nicer, but YMMW as to whether it's worth a ward split. Personally I think I'd make the changes involving Rubery, but I'd just live with the Yardley split. I think that the minimum change approach taken here and the close resemblance of these seats to their predecessors provides, according to the discussion of the rules ongoing in other threads, a justification for the BCE to split a ward. As much as ward-splitting should be a last resort, I find it hard to believe that this approach is less disruptive than dividing Solihull in two. EAL - My response to YL's plan just now crossed with your post; this is unfortunate because I'd have preferred to have commented on them both together. I'm especially impressed by your managing to get two whole seats into Dudley. But on the other hand, it's obviously a problem that your Dudley North penetrates almost to the centre of Wolverhampton. You're extremely welcome to borrow my idea of treating Oscott with Walsall: but I'd point out that this creates the potential advantage (since we are all, of course, trying to respect LA boundaries) that Oscott + Walsall + Wolverhampton = 374655, which is almost perfect for five seats. My plan takes advantage of this fact, meaning there's no need to cross the southern borders of Walsall and Wolverhampton and these boroughs can be handled in way that minimizes changes to the existing seats. But I can see you had to cross the Dudley-Wolverhampton boundary to make your Dudley arrangement work; which necessitated a crossing between Sandwell and Walsall to balance the numbers up. In the end, there's no perfect answer to this; it's all about how we balance the imperfections. |
|
