|
|
Post by mattb on Apr 1, 2019 8:09:53 GMT
I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them. Berkshire's horrible under nine seats. The only way I could really do it was to have Reading covering three seats - a 'Reading Central' constituency taking up most of Reading, with a 'South and West' constituency making up most of the rest. Splitting West Berkshire into, effectively, two seats is tricky too with the geographical size of the wards. Western Reading is grouped with most of eastern West Berkshire, with the Downlands (western most light blue) ward being in there to ensure an even population split. Slough would lose southern Langley to Windsor; Windsor also loses a ward to Bracknell (yellow's northern most ward). Maidenhead is reduced in size - losing wards to Wokingham and 'Reading S&W'.
I think something like this would work better:
(still not ideal, especially the orphan Reading ward in the Theale constituency (is there a better name? mid-Berks?); but actually not too bad overall)
 |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 1, 2019 8:59:55 GMT
Berkshire's horrible under nine seats. The only way I could really do it was to have Reading covering three seats - a 'Reading Central' constituency taking up most of Reading, with a 'South and West' constituency making up most of the rest. Splitting West Berkshire into, effectively, two seats is tricky too with the geographical size of the wards. Western Reading is grouped with most of eastern West Berkshire, with the Downlands (western most light blue) ward being in there to ensure an even population split. Slough would lose southern Langley to Windsor; Windsor also loses a ward to Bracknell (yellow's northern most ward). Maidenhead is reduced in size - losing wards to Wokingham and 'Reading S&W'.
I think something like this would work better:
(still not ideal, especially the orphan Reading ward in the Theale constituency (is there a better name? mid-Berks?); but actually not too bad overall)
The seat covers a very similar area to the old Bradfield Rural district so I would go for Bradfield |
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Apr 1, 2019 9:34:03 GMT
The ironic thing is that a boundary review under the old rules would likely have been implemented by now as a review had to be implemented 8-12 years after the last one; with this current review effectively dead in the water, it is unlikely that any new boundary review won't now be implemented until the 2020s and will probably be based on 650 MPs(which will require further primary legislation).
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Apr 1, 2019 10:40:35 GMT
Just had a go at a 7 seat Gloucestershire. It would be, quite simply, horrific. It would help the Forest of Dean enormously, but screw both Cheltenham and Gloucester completely. Having had a play around I think the best solution would probably be some kind of west Cheltenham-east Gloucester monstrosity ('Hatherley'). Stroud would then lose little bits to both Gloucester and Cotswold, with the nothern half of Cotswold, essentially Bourton-on-the-Water upwards tacked onto Tewkesbury district north of Cheltenham and Gloucester.
Couldn't resist having a quick go at this - how does this look?
Some compromises, inevitably, but overall live-with-able?
Avoids any 3-district seats and also avoids splitting any districts 3 ways.
 |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453 
|
Post by iain on Apr 1, 2019 10:48:48 GMT
Just had a go at a 7 seat Gloucestershire. It would be, quite simply, horrific. It would help the Forest of Dean enormously, but screw both Cheltenham and Gloucester completely. Having had a play around I think the best solution would probably be some kind of west Cheltenham-east Gloucester monstrosity ('Hatherley'). Stroud would then lose little bits to both Gloucester and Cotswold, with the nothern half of Cotswold, essentially Bourton-on-the-Water upwards tacked onto Tewkesbury district north of Cheltenham and Gloucester.
Couldn't resist having a quick go at this - how does this look?
Some compromises, inevitably, but overall live-with-able?
Avoids any 3-district seats and also avoids splitting any districts 3 ways.
I preferred East Anglian Lefty 's effort up thread (your Cirencester seat is horrible), but in all honesty there is no nice way to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 1, 2019 18:58:07 GMT
Surely 6.42+2.77 = 9.19 for ceremonial Gloucestershire, which would work fairly neatly for 9 seats as a combination of top-tier authorities? Then it would just be a question of whether Bristol and ceremonial Somerset could be paired just as tidily. It would/could equalise electorates, definitely, but the main issue is that you are fixing things that, under old rules, ain't broken. The old rules took a more lax approach to electoral equality and were stricter on "local ties", which meant any number of things, but included avoiding crossing local authority boundaries and taking a minimal change approach to existing constituencies. I had a look at the south part. If you top up both Filton & Bradley Stoke and Kingswood with a ward each from Thornbury & Yate, you can extend the latter to include two wards from Cotswold and the Dursley bit of Stroud. But then you run up against the main problem: both Cheltenham and Gloucester are too big for a single constituency and far too small for 2 (they both come in around 86,000 voters on Boundary Assistant.) The Commission's solution to that has been the ugly, but least worst option, of hiving off a ward here or there and putting them with the big rural constituencies beside them. If you go down the electoral equality route you have to hive more urban wards off. At subsequent local enquiries there will almost certainly be local opposition to the idea that "suburban Gloucester ward X" belongs more with Tewkesbury or Stroud than Gloucester and that Thornbury and Yate needs to cross local authority boundaries. Doubt it would fly under the old rules. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 1, 2019 20:29:38 GMT
Surely 6.42+2.77 = 9.19 for ceremonial Gloucestershire, which would work fairly neatly for 9 seats as a combination of top-tier authorities? Then it would just be a question of whether Bristol and ceremonial Somerset could be paired just as tidily. I had a look at the south part. If you top up both Filton & Bradley Stoke and Kingswood with a ward each from Thornbury & Yate, you can extend the latter to include two wards from Cotswold and the Dursley bit of Stroud. But then you run up against the main problem: both Cheltenham and Gloucester are too big for a single constituency and far too small for 2 (they both come in around 86,000 voters on Boundary Assistant.) The Commission's solution to that has been the ugly, but least worst option, of hiving off a ward here or there and putting them with the big rural constituencies beside them. If you go down the electoral equality route you have to hive more urban wards off. At subsequent local enquiries there will almost certainly be local opposition to the idea that "suburban Gloucester ward X" belongs more with Tewkesbury or Stroud than Gloucester and that Thornbury and Yate needs to cross local authority boundaries. Doubt it would fly under the old rules. Oh yes, I have seen and heard this sort of thing both in the reports and in person! Isn't the whole point of an 'old rules' review that there would be more flexibility in this regard though? |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Apr 1, 2019 21:23:32 GMT
I have requested the UK parliamentary electorates for each local authority ward in Scotland from all the EROs so I can play the game properly! I'll endeavour to make the data available once I have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 1, 2019 21:26:56 GMT
I've had a look at Lancashire and it's looking pretty ugly. A seat called "Poulton, Fleetwood and Bispham" is one of the least worst options. It always looks ugly when you do it. What's the problem? It has 15 seats same as now - just need to move a few voters around to equalise electorates a bit I should imagine (the name you're looking for is 'Wyre' btw) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 1, 2019 21:33:27 GMT
oh hold on - Andrew Teale said that. But it has 16 seats now
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 1, 2019 21:37:24 GMT
I've had a look at Lancashire and it's looking pretty ugly. A seat called "Poulton, Fleetwood and Bispham" is one of the least worst options. It always looks ugly when you do it. What's the problem? It has 15 seats same as now - just need to move a few voters around to equalise electorates a bit I should imagine (the name you're looking for is 'Wyre' btw) Lancs currently has 16 seats, so it's not just a case of moving a few voters around. You need to decide which seat(s) gets the chop. Foggy, they had more flexibility but that was to use when extra seats were needed or there were significantly oversized or undersized seats, neither of which would apply in this case. There was no official permitted deviation but they usually tried to keep it within 10%, which would be easy with 6.42 quotas and 2.77 quotas. So I suspect they'd save themselves the hassle and go the minimum change route. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 1, 2019 21:53:07 GMT
It always looks ugly when you do it. What's the problem? It has 15 seats same as now - just need to move a few voters around to equalise electorates a bit I should imagine (the name you're looking for is 'Wyre' btw) Lancs currently has 16 seats, so it's not just a case of moving a few voters around. You need to decide which seat(s) gets the chop. As I already observed - I was going off this North West: Cheshire (including Halton and Warrington) 11.02 quotas rounds to 11 seats (no change). These would probably be four for Cheshire East (3.86), two for Warrington (2.18) and five for Cheshire West (3.66) and Halton (1.32). Cumbria 5.33 quotas rounds to 5 seats (down 1). I can't see special geographical considerations being invoked here to keep the sixth seat. Lancashire (including Blackburn and Blackpool) 14.98 quotas rounds to 15 seats (no change).Merseyside 13.94 quotas rounds to 14 seats (down 1). The seat which disappears is on the Wirral which has fallen to 3.35 quotas rounding to 3 seats (down 1). Minimal change is likely north of the Mersey. Greater Manchester 27.04 quotas rounds to 27 seats (no change). Some changes are needed to the pairings as the entitlement of the current Manchester/Salford/Trafford group has gone up from nine seats to ten. This is likely to be solved by moving Salford out of that group and grouping it with Bolton and Wigan: that would give seven seats for Manchester and Trafford, eight for Bolton, Salford and Wigan, two for Bury, two for Rochdale and eight for Oldham, Tameside and Stockport. Overall the North West loses 2 seats. Realised it was 16 when I started actually doing it. 15 seats is tricky, thought he Blackpool, Preston, Lancaster area where the seat is actually lost is no problem. It's East Lancashire that's the problem |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 1, 2019 22:10:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Apr 2, 2019 4:55:00 GMT
I had been going to post an attempt at Lancs this morning - but this is so similar to mine, I won't bother! Though you did get some of the names wrong: Pendle & Bowland Burnley & Nelson Wyre Valley Fleetwood and Blackpool (instead of Blackpool N and S) |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Apr 3, 2019 22:50:38 GMT
I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them. I see what you mean about Kent ... this was the best I could come up with ... definitely some compromises!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 10:27:40 GMT
I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them. I see what you mean about Kent ... this was the best I could come up with ... definitely some compromises! I'd be interested for this to happen so I can see the response to the Romney and Tenterden and Dover and Folkestone seats. Although given the numbers you managed to do the North East of Kent well, and you've got rid of problems like 'Maidstone and the Weald.' |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 10, 2019 13:42:41 GMT
I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them. I see what you mean about Kent ... this was the best I could come up with ... definitely some compromises! jIf we're doing 19 seats in Kent then I would suggest this - make the ugly split in Herne and put the new rural seat west of Malling.  |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Apr 26, 2019 0:51:30 GMT
I looked at the London Boroughs which would have their entitlement changed and got the following: An unpaired Brent and Camden reverts to pre-2010 names (if not boundaries) with the re-creation of Brent East, Brent South and Hampstead and Highgate.
Brent East BC Brent North BC Brent South BC Hampstead and Highgate BC Holborn and St. Pancras BC
Hackney and Haringey are paired for the creation of a cross-borough constituency which necessitates the splitting of the current Tottenham constituency. I think I have largely avoided the wrath of David Lammy pitchforks by keeping Tottenham proper in one constituency which brings in Wood Green. Harringay and the most northern Hackney wards form the new constituency.
Hornsey BC Tottenham and Wood Green BC Harringay and Stamford Hill BC Hackney North and Stoke Newington BC Hackney South and Shoreditch BC
In Newham and Tower Hamlets, a cross-constituency seat is created covering Bow and Stratford. The rest of Newham is split North-South rather than East-West.
Bethnal Green and Whitechapel BC Poplar and Limehouse BC Bow and Stratford BC Newham North East BC Newham South BC
Going south of the river, the unpairing of Lambeth and Southwark causes Dulwich and West Norwood to be abolished. Dulwich is drawn with Camberwell while Peckham goes it alone. In Lambeth, West Norwood goes with Streatham while the residents of Clapham Common get to live in the Brixton constituency.
Vauxhall BC Brixton BC Streatham and West Norwood BC Bermondsey and Old Southwark BC Camberwell and Dulwich BC Peckham BC
Croydon gets four seats, which makes things fairly straightforward, the only dilemma being whether to keep the name 'Croydon Central'. As the consitituency in question contains Croydon Town Centre, I decide to stick with it.
Croydon North BC Croydon Central BC Croydon East BC Croydon South BC
Then we move onto Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston, which is a mess. Three paired boroughs and the River Thames to contend with made things difficult, although maybe others would be able to make a better hash of it.
Brentford and Isleworth BC Hounslow and Heston BC Feltham and Hampton BC Richmond Park and Twickenham BC (Yes, I know half the park isn't even in the constituency, but I kept 'Park' in there to differentiate from Richmond, Yorkshire). Kingston and Teddington BC Surbiton BC
P.S. For some reason, I unable to highlight South Twickenham Ward on Plan Builder, so used MS Paint instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 10, 2019 15:48:25 GMT
Had a quick attempt at Oxfordshire. The only way to get seven seats seems to be by splitting Oxford into three. Abingdon CC Banbury CC Bicester and Headington CC Henley CC Oxford BC Wantage and Didcot CC Witney CC Splitting Oxford 3 ways is not needed. Add Woodstock, Wheatley and the ward south of Wheatley to Bicester. Compensate Henley by adding Wallingford. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on May 10, 2019 16:58:28 GMT
Hackney and Haringey are paired for the creation of a cross-borough constituency which necessitates the splitting of the current Tottenham constituency. I think I have largely avoided the wrath of David Lammy pitchforks by keeping Tottenham proper in one constituency which brings in Wood Green. Harringay and the most northern Hackney wards form the new constituency.
Hornsey BC Tottenham and Wood Green BC Harringay and Hackney North BC Hackney Central BC Hackney South and Shoreditch BC
Wouldn't Stamford Hill and Harringay be a more sensible name for the Haringey-Hackney cross borough seat? The seat contains none of Hackney proper and a great majority of the seat is either Stamford Hill or Harringay thus making this the obvious name. Plus then there is no need to change the name of Hackney North and Stoke Newington. |
|
