2018 Review - West Midlands

[rocky]

There is a reasonably sound solution to the Erdington issue by creating a seat of Erdington, Kingstanding, Oscott, and then a couple of walsall seats that border Oscott. Called Erdington and Great Barr I think it would mostly be acceptable.

Another solution would be current constituency plus Oscott with a split in Tyburn ward round the proposed Tyburn ward and move that into anothe constituency south of the m6.

In Halesoween, the four wards plus quinton and Bartley green is a logical crossing point and makes dudley pretty easy from there.

[East Anglian Lefty]

If you leave Tyburn out of the Erdington group, all the four-ward combinations it can go in are at least as bad as Perry Barr and Erdington.

[YL]

OK, how about this?

- Two split wards, both in Birmingham.
- Quinton in an otherwise Sandwell seat.
- Fairly minimal changey in Birmingham, though I suspect effectively merging Ladywood and Edgbaston might be a bit pitchforky.
- Several features of the plan stolen from East Anglian Lefty , including the whole Dudley/Wolverhampton arrangement.


(split wards shown in the constituency the largest part is in)

Sutton Coldfield 73,172 - unchanged.

Birmingham Erdington 80,035-x - gains most of Oscott.

Birmingham Perry Barr 67,657+x - gains Aston, loses most of Oscott.

Birmingham Hodge Hill 71,165

Birmingham Yardley 71,919 - a questionable swap of Bordesley Green and Stechford & Yardley North between these two gets the numbers right.

Birmingham Edgbaston & Ladywood 77,903 - merger of what's left of the two seats.

Birmingham Hall Green 73,938 - unchanged.

Birmingham Selly Oak 68,460+y - current seat plus part of either Weoley or King's Norton.

Birmingham Northfield 86,145-y - loses part of a ward, gains Bartley Green.

Smethwick & Quinton 77,986

West Bromwich 72,103

Walsall East & Great Barr 73,164

Aldridge & Bloxwich 76,572

Walsall West 73,079

Wolverhampton East 77,239

Wolverhampton West 74,882

Dudley North & Bilston 78,250

Dudley South 71,054

Stourbridge 78,320

Halesowen & Rowley Regis 75,822

[rocky]

May 22, 2016 9:28:18 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

If you leave Tyburn out of the Erdington group, all the four-ward combinations it can go in are at least as bad as Perry Barr and Erdington.

Apologies I meant just leave out the new single member Tyburn ward 

[rocky]

May 25, 2016 18:40:02 GMT YL said:

OK, how about this?

- Two split wards, both in Birmingham.
- Quinton in an otherwise Sandwell seat.
- Fairly minimal changey in Birmingham, though I suspect effectively merging Ladywood and Edgbaston might be a bit pitchforky.
- Several features of the plan stolen from East Anglian Lefty , including the whole Dudley/Wolverhampton arrangement.


(split wards shown in the constituency the largest part is in)

Sutton Coldfield 73,172 - unchanged.

Birmingham Erdington 80,035-x - gains most of Oscott.

Birmingham Perry Barr 67,657+x - gains Aston, loses most of Oscott.

Birmingham Hodge Hill 71,165

Birmingham Yardley 71,919 - a questionable swap of Bordesley Green and Stechford & Yardley North between these two gets the numbers right.

Birmingham Edgbaston & Ladywood 77,903 - merger of what's left of the two seats.

Birmingham Hall Green 73,938 - unchanged.

Birmingham Selly Oak 68,460+y - current seat plus part of either Weoley or King's Norton.

Birmingham Northfield 86,145-y - loses part of a ward, gains Bartley Green.

Smethwick & Quinton 77,986

West Bromwich 72,103

Walsall East & Great Barr 73,164

Aldridge & Bloxwich 76,572

Walsall West 73,079

Wolverhampton East 77,239

Wolverhampton West 74,882

Dudley North & Bilston 78,250

Dudley South 71,054

Stourbridge 78,320

Halesowen & Rowley Regis 75,822

Hayley green can't be taken out of Halesoween as it includes half of the town centre. Also quinton a better fit in there than in a sandwell seat.

personally I'd prefer keeping yardley as is and just split Springfield ward to make numbers fit and then add rest to a hall green seat, this would impact on rest of South Brum as well.

Having a seat going from Harborne to the M6 in Nechells is very unlikely to ever be approved I would think. Certainly pitchfork bait.

[rocky]

You know I was told Hayley Green splits the town centre but just checking it maybe Belle Velle that does actually so apologies if I am wrong on that.

[islington]

May 25, 2016 18:40:02 GMT YL said:

OK, how about this?

- Two split wards, both in Birmingham.
- Quinton in an otherwise Sandwell seat.
- Fairly minimal changey in Birmingham, though I suspect effectively merging Ladywood and Edgbaston might be a bit pitchforky.
- Several features of the plan stolen from East Anglian Lefty , including the whole Dudley/Wolverhampton arrangement.


(split wards shown in the constituency the largest part is in)

Sutton Coldfield 73,172 - unchanged.

Birmingham Erdington 80,035-x - gains most of Oscott.

Birmingham Perry Barr 67,657+x - gains Aston, loses most of Oscott.

Birmingham Hodge Hill 71,165

Birmingham Yardley 71,919 - a questionable swap of Bordesley Green and Stechford & Yardley North between these two gets the numbers right.

Birmingham Edgbaston & Ladywood 77,903 - merger of what's left of the two seats.

Birmingham Hall Green 73,938 - unchanged.

Birmingham Selly Oak 68,460+y - current seat plus part of either Weoley or King's Norton.

Birmingham Northfield 86,145-y - loses part of a ward, gains Bartley Green.

Smethwick & Quinton 77,986

West Bromwich 72,103

Walsall East & Great Barr 73,164

Aldridge & Bloxwich 76,572

Walsall West 73,079

Wolverhampton East 77,239

Wolverhampton West 74,882

Dudley North & Bilston 78,250

Dudley South 71,054

Stourbridge 78,320

Halesowen & Rowley Regis 75,822

Or - How about this?

Basically, I want to keep the two breaches of Birmingham's western boundary (i.e. one Brum ward (Oscott) treated with Walsall; one Sandwell ward (Soho & Victoria) treated with Brum). Partly, this is to avoid ward splits, which I think is a legitimate and important aim although I accept that other contributors may give it less priority. But there are other reasons that have nothing to do with ward splits, namely:

• Treating Oscott with Walsall allows Walsall and Wolverhampton (plus Oscott) to get exactly five seats, thus avoiding any need to cross the southern boundary of these boroughs; moreover, there is a very satisfactory map for these five seats that involves minimum change to the existing seat pattern.
• Putting Sandwell's Soho & Victoria ward in with Brum crosses the boundary at a very porous point (as the names suggest, the Soho area overlaps the border) and it supplies the additional numbers necessary to allow a Ladywood seat that otherwise consists of four wards below average size in the central Brum area; this in turn allows a very satisfactory Edgbaston seat (the current seat plus Selly Oak ward) - I do agree with whoever it was suggested upthread that Edgbaston and Ladywood should preferably be kept separate.

So I'm standing by my original proposals for Birmingham, Walsall and Wolverhampton. However, in the light of recent discussions I'd like to revise my proposals for the Black Country, to improve the shape of the seats and to show more respect for the boundary between Dudley and Sandwell. Therefore I suggest:

STOURBRIDGE (78320) - As the two Lefties have it above.
KINGSWINFORD (71054) - Also as above: I prefer this name to 'Dudley South', although 'Dudley South West' is a possibilty.
DUDLEY (78045) - The six Dudley wards from the Dudley N seat above, plus the Sandwell wards of Rowley and Tividale (if the previous seat is Dudley SW this would be Dudley NE).
HALESOWEN AND WARLEY (74766) - From Dudley - the Halesowen wards and Belle Vale; from Sandwell - Cradley Heath, Blackheath, Langley, Warley, Abbey.
WEST BROMWICH (72075) - Smethwick, St Paul's, W Brom C, Newton, Charlemont, Gt Barr, Bristnall, Hateley Heath. Or 'W Brom E' if you prefer.
WEDNESBURY (71896) - The remaining eight wards  of Sandwell. Or 'W Brom W'.

Compared with my original plan, we now have two seats wholly in Dudley instead of one; two wholly in Sandwell instead of one; two seats crossing the Dudley-Sandwell border instead of four. All the seats are reasonably compact with decent connectivity; Kingswinford (aka Dudley SW) is probably the least satisfactory, but it's better than my previous 'Brierley Hill and Rowley Regis' that it sort-of replaces, and at least it's all in one borough. This arrangement is also better in terms of minimum change: six of the existing seven seats in this area have a clear successor, with the exception of Warley which is definitely the seat to disappear.

And there's more. Although the foregoing is now my revised proposal, I also offer the following if (as in EAL's one-split plan) you accept the treatment of Oscott with Walsall but don't want any other crossings of the Birmingham boundary. In that case, I suggest the following way of awarding six whole seats to Sandwell and Dudley.

STOURBRIDGE, KINGSWINFORD and DUDLEY: All as above.
HALESOWEN AND WARLEY (75752): Compared with the above, gains Bristnall and loses Abbey.
WEST BROMWICH (78485): Compared with the above, gains Abbey, Soho and Greets Gn and loses Bristnall and Hateley Heath. Perilously close to the upper limit, but legal.
WEDNESBURY (73233): Swaps Hateley Heath and Greets Gn with the foregoing.

 

[Foggy]

May 26, 2016 10:02:26 GMT islington said:

May 25, 2016 18:40:02 GMT YL said:

KINGSWINFORD (71054) - Also as above: I prefer this name to 'Dudley South', although 'Dudley South West' is a possibilty.
DUDLEY (78045) - The six Dudley wards from the Dudley N seat above, plus the Sandwell wards of Rowley and Tividale (if the previous seat is Dudley SW this would be Dudley NE).

 

Kingswinford and Dudley are indeed the correct names for these two seats.

[islington]

And so on to the West Midlands ...





WM-A (Worcs, Salop, Hereford): 909908 = 12.17 = 12

This is an area I know reasonably well (it contains some of the finest walking country in the entire UK), but I don't think I've posted a plan before.

BRIDGNORTH AND THE WREKIN - 77172. You could call it 'E Shropshire'.
BROMSGROVE - 72042. I'm surprised some plans upthread have been willing to disrupt the current seat. But it's logical, compact, within range, and coterminous with its district - surely such a seat should be left alone if at all possible.
HEREFORD - 77042. I've simplified the current tautological name.
KIDDERMINSTER - 75226. See comments on Bromsgrove. But I've changed the name because who knows where 'Wyre Forest' is?
LEOMINSTER AND LUDLOW - 75065
MALVERN - 76837. The name 'Malvern', whether it is understood as relating to the range of hills or the towns of Gt Malvern &c, is very central to the seat so there's no need for a double name to represent its two-county character. Note that the Severn provides a very strong eastern boundary for this seat.
OSWESTRY - 77768. I've bowed to opinion on this forum favouring this name over 'N Shropshire' but I can't say I'm much fussed either way.
SHREWSBURY - 75528
TELFORD - 76640. I've got the numbers up by including the Wellington area, which I think is a natural addition although it gives the seat a marked north-westerly spur. To stay within range I moved Wrockwardine Wood the other way.
WORCESTER - 72912
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE - 76912. The successor to Redditch, but it now includes far more of rural Worcs spread out awkwardly along the eastern side of the county. This isn't a great seat, to be honest, but alternatives involve disrupting Bromsgrove and this would be even more undesirable. It would be far better if the southern wards of this seat could be added to Mid Worcs, with Droitwich going the other way, but the numbers say no.
MID WORCESTERSHIRE - 76764. Substantially altered from the current seat of this name.

[Adrian]

I hope the Commission's map isn't as weird as that! I think Redditch-Hollywood and Bromsgrove-Droitwich is the way to go. And there are ways of keeping Wellington out of the Telford seat without splitting wards. ukelect.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/2018-review-shropshire-herefordshire-worcestershire/

[islington]

Thanks for comments, Adrian, and I've had a look at your scheme.

Regarding your treatment of Droitwich: remind me what you said the other day, in the SE thread. Something about having towns at the edge of their seats?

More seriously, though, I'd argue that the existing Bromsgrove seat is highly satisfactory and I think it should be left as it is unless there are absolutely compelling reasons it can't be. So I acknowledge the negatives of my E Worcs, but I think they're outweighed by the positive case for Bromsgrove.

Elsewhere, I agree that if there is some strong reason (that I'm not aware of) for keeping Wellington out of Telford, then there are good options for achieving this.

[islington]

We move on to the urban West Midlands.





WM-B (W Midlands met): 1862769 = 24.91 = 25

This is the second largest group, with only about three thousand fewer electors than NW-E (Manchester, &c) which also gets 25 seats. I have friends and relatives in the Birmingham area and I also visit the city for business reasons, so I feel I know it quite well.

There is a key strategic decision to take about how to treat Coventry (entitlement 2.81). The most natural pairing is with Warwks (5.37) and this was my first thought. It would leave the rest of the W Mids met boroughs with 22.10; or, if you treat Solihull separately (as you probably then would), the remaining boroughs with 20.05. This ought to be fine for 20 seats, but I couldn't make it work (and EAL came independently to the same conclusion). Even adding Solihull back in didn't work - I always had a Solihull ward left over. It was when I came up with an approach that was apparently worse, because it had two Solihull wards left over, that I realized that also adding Coventry back in gave me a workable 25-seat solution, without a single ward split, for the urban W Mids area as a whole (it has knock-on consequences, of course, for Warks and Staffs, but I'll save those for another post).

The more I think about it, and taking account also of the effect in Warwks and Staffs, the more I feel this is the best solution. It allows an approach that shows a high degree of respect for the current map in Coventry, Wolverhampton and Walsall, and to a lesser extent in Dudley and Sandwell; it involves only a limited number of boundary crossings, and in particular keeps the overwhelming majority of Birmingham voters (38 wards out of 40) in a Birmingham seat. And although this scheme unfortunately rips up the current map in Solihull and most of Birmingham, all the seats are workable on their own merits and it does not involve anything like a seat stretching from King's Heath all the way to the M6 as in one of the ward-split solutions upthread.

ALDRIDGE - 75866. This extends into Birmingham to take Oscott ward. This may not be ideal, but the communications are reasonable and the inclusion of Oscott in a Walsall seat provides the numbers to allow a very satisfactory 5-seat arrangement in Walsall and Wolverhampton that shows a lot of respect to the current map. (Walsall + Wolverhampton + Oscott = 374655 = 5.01). See also comments on Erdington.
BIRMINGHAM ASTON - 73395. Not minimum change (it's the eastern half of Ladywood and the western half of Hodge Hill) but it's a good compact seat northeast of the city centre and 'Aston' has resonance beyond Birmingham and a distinguished history as a constituency name, so it's a pleasure to revive it.
BIRMINGHAM EDGBASTON - 76801. If you want to avoid multiple ward splits then you need 5-ward seats in Birmingham and this is a very natural one, simply adding one ward to the current seat.
BIRMINGHAM ERDINGTON - 77920. This is the other 5-ward seat and it's also OK for minimum change (just one ward added to the current seat). Admittedly it's an awkward addition, but if you don't want multiple ward splits you have to take your 5-ward seats where you can find them. This seat is possible only because Oscott ward has been housed elsewhere.
BIRMINGHAM KINGS NORTON - 71357. Someone upthread suggested reservations about naming a long thin seat after a location at one end rather than in the middle. But a glance at the existing Selly Oak seat (which this partly replaces) shows that this is not a decisive objection; and Kings Norton has history (admittedly not recent) as a constituency name.
BIRMINGHAM LADYWOOD - 74147. The eastern half of Ladywood (the city centre) plus the southern half of Perry Barr (roughly, the Handsworth area) with a ward of Sandwell to round it off and make up the numbers. The city boundary is porous in this area and goes right through the Soho district (which this seat thus unites) but it is unfortunate that the Sandwell ward penetrates so far into the centre of Smethwick.
BIRMINGHAM NORTHFIELD - 71729. One ward in and one ward out, but recognizably a continuation of the current seat.
BIRMINGHAM SPARKBROOK - 72993. A string of four wards to the southeast of the city (the western half of Hall Green and the southern half of Yardley); Sparkbrook is central to the seat and has recent history as a constituency name.
BIRMINGHAM STECHFORD - 77002. The northern half of Yardley and eastern Hodge Hill, plus Castle Bromwich ward of Solihull (which I defy anyone to tell me is not a natural addition to a Birmingham seat). 'Stechford' is another familiar name now revived. I was unable to avoid the unfortunate division of the Yardley area between this and the preceding seat.
COVENTRY EAST - 72135. The same as Coventry NE but this is a more accurate name - it's not all 'north' but it is all 'east'.
COVENTRY SOUTH - 78059. Just one ward added to the current seat.
COVENTRY WEST AND MERIDEN - 77441
DUDLEY - 78045. Includes the whole of the town centre and most of the rest of the town (and a couple of Sandwell wards, but it's one of only two seats to cross the boundary - my original plan had four).
HALESOWEN AND WARLEY - 74766. The other Dudley-Sandwell seat.
KINGSWINFORD - 71054. A slightly awkward seat and only just over the minimum but wholly in Dudley. Kingswinford is a large settlement and falls entirely within the seat, and it has been used in the past as a constituency name.
SOLIHULL NORTH - 71131. I've been criticized upthread for dividing Solihull town. I'd say in reply that there are a lot of cases throughout the country where a large town, that could (more or less) be captured in a single seat, is the principal component in a bigger borough named after it. There are two approaches to this: (a) one seat for the big town and another seat for the rest (I'd call that the Rochdale model); or (b) the big town divided between two seats that mop up the other areas between them (the Oldham model). These are both common approaches and there's nothing wrong with either of them; it's a pragmatic decision in each case. All I've done in Solihull is switch from the Rochdale model to the Oldham model.
SOLIHULL SOUTH - 74676. Hall Green is the other ward squeezed out of Brum; this is not ideal, but it's a decent fit with this seat.
STOURBRIDGE - 78320. The other seat wholly in Dudley. The wards are very awkward in size, so you have either a 7-ward seat near the minimum (Kingswinford) or, as here, an 8-ward seat near the maximum.
SUTTON COLDFIELD - 73172
WALSALL NORTH - 72944
WALSALL SOUTH AND BILSTON - 73724
WEDNESBURY - 71896. Or W Brom W, if preferred.
WEST BROMWICH - 72075. In which case this is W Brom E.
WOLVERHAMPTON NORTH EAST - 74833
WOLVERHAMPTON SOUTH WEST - 77288

[Adrian]

Jun 20, 2016 9:45:18 GMT islington said:

Thanks for comments, Adrian, and I've had a look at your scheme.

Regarding your treatment of Droitwich: remind me what you said the other day, in the SE thread. Something about having towns at the edge of their seats?

The exception proves the rule ;-)

re West Mids county, I think it's a good effort even though in a few places it's reminiscent in style of the mess the Commission came up with at the zombie review. I think that one reason that the political parties have pushed for some ward splits to be allowed this time around is so that the effects of the review won't be so drastic in areas with very large wards.

[greenhert]

Ward-splitting should still only occur where it is necessary for community integrity, though, like in the city of Birmingham. Even then, there should be as few constituencies with split wards as possible.

A plan for Birmingham with as few split wards as possible but having all its constituencies entirely in the city of Birmingham, might look like this:

1. Sutton Coldfield (73,172). Unchanged; this should always remain intact in any Birmingham plan.

2. Birmingham Northfield (70,048+x). The wards of Bartley Green, Weobley, Northfield, and Longbridge, plus part of King's Norton.

3. Birmingham Selly Oak (83,909-x). The wards of Selly Oak, Bournville, Moseley & King's Heath, and Brandwood, plus part of King's Norton.

4. Birmingham Hall Green (74,548). The wards of Hall Green, Acocks Green, Springfield, and Billesley.

5. Birmingham Edgbaston & Ladywood (76,582). The wards of Harborne, Edgbaston, Quinton, Ladywood, and Soho.

6. Birmingham Yardley (88,373-x). The wards of Bordesley Green, South Yardley, Shard End, and Hodge Hill, plus the 'Yardley North' part of Stetchford & Yardley North ward.

7. Birmingham Erdington & Stetchford (63,837+x). The wards of Erdington, Tyburn, Hodge Hill, and Stockland Green, plus the Stetchford part of Stetchford & Yardley North ward.

8. Birmingham Handsworth (83,717-x). The wards of Handsworth Wood, Old Oscott, and Kingstanding, and Perry Barr, plus the East Handsworth part of Lozells & East Handsworth ward.

9. Birmingham Sparkbrook (72,618+x). The wards of Sparkbrook, Nechells, Aston, and Washwood Heath, plus the Lozells part of Lozells & East Handsworth ward.

I have been careful only to split the Birmingham wards which clearly contain parts of two distinct communities.

[islington]

Adrian

There's some common ground with the zombie review but, modesty aside, I think I've done better overall. (And I thought my Erdington was ugly, until I saw the zombie version...)

And I see the BCE committed the same offence as I did of 'borrowing' Oscott to go with bits of Walsall (although I maintain that my proposal for W'ton/Walsall/Oscott is a lot more respectful of LA boundaries and the current map than what the BCE came up with in the zombie).

Regarding ward splits:

We're going over old ground here but, where there is at least one workable scheme that doesn't need a ward split, I think the onus is on ward-splitting advocates to show that their proposals result in a markedly better map - not in just one or two selected areas, but across the piece. And the more splits the plan involves, the greater the improvement has to be. My assessment of the splitting plans posted upthread is that the major improvements that they offer in specific areas tend to be largely or wholly offset by knock-on changes elsewhere that are much less satisfactory (e.g. the 'King's Heath to the M6' seat) so that on balance, the overall map offers, at best, only a marginal improvement on the non-split alternative - which in my view is not enough to justify splitting, which ought to be a rare and exceptional step.

[Adrian]

"There's some common ground with the zombie review but, modesty aside, I think I've done better overall."

Yes, like I said, it's a good effort.

I don't want to start another two pages about ward splitting (oh, go on then) but I really hope the tone of the review this time is not the one you espouse. To my mind, the purpose of the review is to create good constituencies within the electoral range. The purpose is not "to create good constituencies within the electoral range without splitting wards". The use of wards as building blocks is part of the technology of the exercise, it isn't an aim of the exercise. To most ordinary folk the obsession with wards is bizarre and symptomatic of a kind of nerdview. Yes, the wards are handy tools, but an over-reliance on them looks like the BCE can't be arsed to do its job properly.

Zombie Birmingham (shudder): ukelect.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/unsplit-birmingham/

[islington]

Adrian

1 - Thanks for your kind words. Every scheme has its flaws, but overall I'm fairly pleased with this one. And I have to admit  that I've allowed myself to indulge a little in the sin of pride for coming up with a workable (albeit imperfect) non-split plan in this area, because when I embarked on the process I anticipated that such an outcome would be either (a) downright impossible (as in Sheffield), or (b) achievable only by means of monstrosities of the 'Mersey Banks' or 'Leeds Met & Ossett' type. (And just to be clear - I'd certainly be willing to split wards to avoid proposing seats like that.)

2 - I agree that the purpose of this exercise is not "to create good constituencies within the electoral range without splitting wards". I support your formulation ("to create good constituencies within the electoral range") so far as it goes, but to my mind it's incomplete. I suggest the aim is "to create good constituencies within the electoral range and having regard both to the existing map and to local government boundaries (including wards)".

In other words, if you want to disturb an existing seat that is within range, or cross a district/borough boundary where it is not numerically necessary, then I think you need to show that this results in a marked (not marginal) improvement on what can be achieved without doing so. I'd put splitting a ward into the same category.

[Foggy]

That is outstanding piece of work, islington. This region and Yorkshire and the Humber (even allowing for ward splits in Sheffield, I end up with undersized seats in the Hull area) are the two I simply can't get to work after many hours of fiddling with the Boundary Assistant.

With all your other proposals so far, there has been a temptation to nitpick and disagree that I've mainly resisted, but this is an exception. I'd even be happy to endorse those boundaries for 'Metro Birmingham' as a 'crowdsourced' submission to the Commission.

[islington]

To conclude the West Mids -





WM-C (Staffs, Warwks): 1216643 = 16.27 = 16

This is another large group but it can be divided into two subgroups of Warwks + Tamworth = 458005 = 6.13 = 6, and the rest of Staffs = 758638 = 10.15 = 10. (And the latter contains three districts that can stand alone as seats: take these out and you are left with a very manageable 529366 = 7.08 = 7.)

Linking Warwks with Staffs is the direct consequence of not linking it with Coventry, and it brings with it a mixed bag of benefits and drawbacks.

BEDWORTH - 75722. In most respects this is a perfectly satisfactory seat with Bedworth squarely in the middle of it (and this treatment of Nuneaton/Bedworth is excellent, whereas some other schemes upthread have struggled in this area). The great drawback is that the seat unavoidably encroaches far too much on Rugby town, taking not only all the wards on the northern periphery but also Admirals & Cawston ward, which is definitely an integral part of the town itself.
BURTON - 76983. The current seat is within range but I had to add a ward for the numbers to work elsewhere. It's unfortunate, but the extra ward is a natural addition and means that Burton town is more central in the seat.
CANNOCK CHASE - 73470. Or simply 'Cannock'.
LEEK - 78211. Or 'NE Staffs' or simply 'N Staffs'.
LICHFIELD - 77591. A great benefit of the Staffs/Warwks link, which I think offers substantial compensation for the treatment of Rugby, is that Lichfield district can become a seat on its own with Lichfield itself right in the centre of it. This is a huge improvement on the ungainly boundary with Tamworth that is unavoidable if Staffs is treated separately and it also means there's no need for the Lichfield seat to get its numbers up by extending deep into central Staffs.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME - 76394
NUNEATON - 76975. The current seat plus the Atherstone area.
RUGBY AND KENILWORTH - 78000. The division of Rugby is much to be regretted, but at least the seat contains the central area and the bulk of the town including the famous school. Note that the electorate is an exact number, not an estimate.
STAFFORD - 77081
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE - 72132
STOKE-ON-TRENT NORTH - 77445. Bursleum, Tunstall and most of Hanley.
STOKE-ON-TRENT SOUTH - 76296. Most of the rest of Stoke.
STONE - 73035. To be frank, this is a 'what was left over' seat. It's an improvement on the 'Mid Staffs' I proposed upthread, if only because it now extends into only three LAs rather than four. The BCE I believe suggested a vaguely similar seat to what I'm now suggesting and called it 'W Staffs', which is not unreasonable.
STRATFORD-ON-AVON - 78370
TAMWORTH - 75393. I'm very happy with this seat despite its cross-county nature. It's nicely focused on the town of Tamworth and the N Warks wards fit in perfectly.
WARWICK AND LEAMINGTON - 73545

[No Offence Alan]

Jun 20, 2016 7:43:55 GMT islington said:

And so on to the West Midlands ...





WM-A (Worcs, Salop, Hereford): 909908 = 12.17 = 12

This is an area I know reasonably well (it contains some of the finest walking country in the entire UK), but I don't think I've posted a plan before.

BRIDGNORTH AND THE WREKIN - 77172. You could call it 'E Shropshire'.
BROMSGROVE - 72042. I'm surprised some plans upthread have been willing to disrupt the current seat. But it's logical, compact, within range, and coterminous with its district - surely such a seat should be left alone if at all possible.
HEREFORD - 77042. I've simplified the current tautological name.
KIDDERMINSTER - 75226. See comments on Bromsgrove. But I've changed the name because who knows where 'Wyre Forest' is?
LEOMINSTER AND LUDLOW - 75065
MALVERN - 76837. The name 'Malvern', whether it is understood as relating to the range of hills or the towns of Gt Malvern &c, is very central to the seat so there's no need for a double name to represent its two-county character. Note that the Severn provides a very strong eastern boundary for this seat.
OSWESTRY - 77768. I've bowed to opinion on this forum favouring this name over 'N Shropshire' but I can't say I'm much fussed either way.
SHREWSBURY - 75528
TELFORD - 76640. I've got the numbers up by including the Wellington area, which I think is a natural addition although it gives the seat a marked north-westerly spur. To stay within range I moved Wrockwardine Wood the other way.
WORCESTER - 72912
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE - 76912. The successor to Redditch, but it now includes far more of rural Worcs spread out awkwardly along the eastern side of the county. This isn't a great seat, to be honest, but alternatives involve disrupting Bromsgrove and this would be even more undesirable. It would be far better if the southern wards of this seat could be added to Mid Worcs, with Droitwich going the other way, but the numbers say no.
MID WORCESTERSHIRE - 76764. Substantially altered from the current seat of this name.

You have separated Evesham from the Vale of Evesham! <sharpens pitchfork>

But seriously, good job.