Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 16, 2016 17:39:36 GMT
I thought we might collect here the best and worse things from the provisional recommendations, so please nominate:
1. The single worst recommendation in your area. 2. The single worst recommendation in the country. 3. The single best recommendation in your area. 4. The single best recommendation in the country. 5. A recommendation that most people might not like but which you think is good (or at least okay).
(You don't have to do all five.)
Of course you might want to add/change some of these when the Scottish proposals come out...
|
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,710
|
Post by myth11 on Sept 16, 2016 18:17:59 GMT
notts to me at least is fair and well balanced plus i could live with new seats as they have been drawn without any change .
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,807
|
Post by jamie on Sept 16, 2016 18:27:30 GMT
1. Depending on what you by 'recommendation', either Blaydon (read Tyne Bridge West) or splitting Gateshead into 6 parts when it doesn't even meet the quota for 2 seats. 2. See above 3. Very low bar for North East, probably Darlington LA as a seat, as many have on this board. 4. TBD when I properly study them. 5. Although I think it's stupid for clearly going against the guidelines when it could easily be avoided, the splitting of Teesside. Stockton, Middlesbrough and the contiguous part of Redcar and Cleveland council areas are all basically the same place and if they did not meet the 3 seat quota I would be perfectly happy to split them. I really don't think it makes much difference to an MP whether they represent the west of Middlesbrough and Thornaby or the west of Middlesbrough and Stockton town centre. Not recommended but not very important in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,209
|
Post by YL on Sept 16, 2016 18:42:23 GMT
1. Sheffield Hallam & Stocksbridge is utterly dreadful. 2. I thought West Durham & Teesdale was quite impressively bad, so I'll use it to resist giving the same answer to 1 and 2. 3. In Yorkshire & the Humber? I think they did quite a good job of the East Riding (including Hull). 4. Devon and Cornwall, given that Devonwall had to be done. 5. As an idea, the re-organisation of north-east Derbyshire, but they didn't include the whole of Dronfield in Bolsover & Dronfield.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 16, 2016 18:46:09 GMT
2. The single worst recommendation in the country. Anything involving Gateshead, Blaydon, and/or Washington. Oh, there's quite a few areas where their recommendations are entirely sensible. They also agree with me as to the least bad options for the Welsh Valleys (although I never posted it here), which was amusing to see. I voted "not good" in that poll, because Northeast and Yorkshire and London, but really "could be worse" is also true and it's at least better than the zombie's initial recommendations. I'm not getting the hate for the commission's proposals for Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch. Surely (triple barreled name I couldn't place on the map apart) that suburban seat is a clear improvement on the current Mid Dorset & North Poole? Maybe a local can elucidate... And if we're going by whimsically adopted home region... 1. I think it's correct to draw a cross-Berwyns monster... but what the hell is Bala doing in it? While the rest of Meirionydd is in one seat with Denbigh town? 3. The only seat in northwest of a line from Wrexham to Pembroke (excl.) that's not horrid around the edges is Conwy & Colwyn, so it wins by default.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 16, 2016 18:50:09 GMT
4. Devon and Cornwall, given that Devonwall had to be done. 5. As an idea, the re-organisation of north-east Derbyshire, but they didn't include the whole of Dronfield in Bolsover & Dronfield. Yeah, I thought of both of these as answers to 5. Plymouth West and Tamarside is just a crazy disruptive idea, the rural Devonwall is preferrable. Not sure they needed to use Launceston though?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 16, 2016 18:51:39 GMT
Some of their best recommendations are in areas where there are very few options. For example, the changes to both North Warwickshire and Nuneaton are eminently sensible. But that's because the two constituencies are at the very edge of their sub-region, and there are a number of issues with the only viable alternative of combining parts of North Warwickshire with Coventry (namely that you must then unnecessarily divide the towns of both Nuneaton and Rugby).
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 16, 2016 19:21:15 GMT
I thought we might collect here the best and worse things from the provisional recommendations, so please nominate: 1. The single worst recommendation in your area. 2. The single worst recommendation in the country. 3. The single best recommendation in your area. 4. The single best recommendation in the country. 5. A recommendation that most people might not like but which you think is good (or at least okay). 1. Croydon North. The problem is that of the 8 wards in the current Croydon North, the 8 wards are over the maximum limit, and all combinations of 7 wards are under the minimum. (Incidentally, this would not have been a problem if the older or newer electorate figures had been used). Therefore it is necessary to muck up the proper boundaries in order to make it fit. The solution proposed by the BCE is that Croydon North should take Crystal Palace from Beckenham, and in turn Beckenham takes Shirley from Croydon Central. I tried to find a counter-proposal which would have kept the Croydon-Bromley boundary intact (and would allow Bromley to have 3 constituencies with no cross-borough seats), but even that would have required the addition of a random ward from Lambeth instead. Unfortunately my idea was also over the maximum limit by 103 electors. 3. Keeping Carshalton & Wallington more-or-less intact.
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Sept 16, 2016 19:51:53 GMT
5. Although I think it's stupid for clearly going against the guidelines when it could easily be avoided, the splitting of Teesside. Stockton, Middlesbrough and the contiguous part of Redcar and Cleveland council areas are all basically the same place and if they did not meet the 3 seat quota I would be perfectly happy to split them. I really don't think it makes much difference to an MP whether they represent the west of Middlesbrough and Thornaby or the west of Middlesbrough and Stockton town centre. Not recommended but not very important in the grand scheme of things. For me the splitting of Middlesbrough into three seats was the worst thing I could find in the country. The BC makes a point of saying that in the documentation that they didn't cross the river in one of the constituencies but then cross the river in the other two when there was no need to cross the river at all.
They could have created three perfectly reasonable seats south of the river that would include Yarm. That in itself may be more acceptable to the locals as the seat would be in Yorkshire at least.
The river is a STRONG boundary in the area and the linking of Middlesbrough (west) and Stockton (east) is, in my opinion, pure folly. It splits two towns down the middle and indeed splits estates within the towns. There is not really any great link between Middlesbrough & Stockton in any case. There is however a link between Middlesbrough & Thornaby as they are both south of the river which good transport links.
As far as linking Middlesbrough & Redcar in the way they do it should be noted that there is about 4 miles of pure industrial landscape between Middlesbrough & Redcar (Chemicals, Steel, etc) and it seems logical to use this as a split as it seems many on this site did with their proposals.
I was born and bred in the area and lived there for the majority of my life (and would love to return) and would be stunned if the local 'powers that be' did not object vehemently at these proposals.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,807
|
Post by jamie on Sept 16, 2016 20:11:23 GMT
5. Although I think it's stupid for clearly going against the guidelines when it could easily be avoided, the splitting of Teesside. Stockton, Middlesbrough and the contiguous part of Redcar and Cleveland council areas are all basically the same place and if they did not meet the 3 seat quota I would be perfectly happy to split them. I really don't think it makes much difference to an MP whether they represent the west of Middlesbrough and Thornaby or the west of Middlesbrough and Stockton town centre. Not recommended but not very important in the grand scheme of things. For me the splitting of Middlesbrough into three seats was the worst thing I could find in the country. The BC makes a point of saying that in the documentation that they didn't cross the river in one of the constituencies but then cross the river in the other two when there was no need to cross the river at all.
They could have created three perfectly reasonable seats south of the river that would include Yarm. That in itself may be more acceptable to the locals as the seat would be in Yorkshire at least.
The river is a STRONG boundary in the area and the linking of Middlesbrough (west) and Stockton (east) is, in my opinion, pure folly. It splits two towns down the middle and indeed splits estates within the towns. There is not really any great link between Middlesbrough & Stockton in any case. There is however a link between Middlesbrough & Thornaby as they are both south of the river which good transport links.
As far as linking Middlesbrough & Redcar in the way they do it should be noted that there is about 4 miles of pure industrial landscape between Middlesbrough & Redcar (Chemicals, Steel, etc) and it seems logical to use this as a split as it seems many on this site did with their proposals.
I was born and bred in the area and lived there for the majority of my life (and would love to return) and would be stunned if the local 'powers that be' did not object vehemently at these proposals.
I agree with you that Thornaby and Middlesbrough West is the best seat and my plan has all of Stockton town in 1 seat, I just don't agree that an event requiring a cross-river seat would be that bad, at least relative to the tough decisions that are needed to be made this boundary review. However, I agree the plan as a whole is abysmal. They seem extremely tied to minimum change and the Redcar and Cleveland council area. This led to the abomination in east Middlesbrough. As you mentioned, it can be solved simply by doing 'Redcar and Cleveland' and 'Middlesbrough East'. This gets my 2nd worst recommendation of the North East plan, but nothing can challenge the complete randomness and unjustifiableness of Blaydon constituency, which mostly steals from my 'Pitchfork' plan, which is based upon speculation about the awful 'Tyne Bridge' idea, which is not even necessary. At least Teeside's plan looks like it came from somewhere and can be construed as justifiable. It's not quite clear why the area west of the industrial landscape is not part of Middlesbrough council? It is residentially separate from Redcar town and rural Cleveland.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 16, 2016 20:12:51 GMT
It's the old Eston UD.
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Sept 16, 2016 20:26:03 GMT
It's not quite clear why the area west of the industrial landscape is not part of Middlesbrough council? It is residentially separate from Redcar town and rural Cleveland.
A little local knowledge, I lived there for 28 of my years in the area.
The area to the west of the industrial area, South Bank, Grangetown , Eston, Normanby, etc was part of Eston Urban District Council and was split from Middesbrough by a green belt (now being built on!).
So yes it was residentially separate from the river up to Normanby/Ormesby, although housing in those two areas now run into each other. There was a beck (stream to non-locals) called Spencer Beck which I believe for the boundary between the Eston and Middlesbrough councils.
These councils disappeared in 1968 with the creation of Teesside. Eston used to include Redcar and at one time I believe it was one of the richest councils in the country because of the industrial areas it covered.
So it may be ancient history but there is a reason that Middlesbrough & Redcar should be separate.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 16, 2016 21:33:01 GMT
The solution proposed by the BCE is that Croydon North should take Crystal Palace from Beckenham, and in turn Beckenham takes Shirley from Croydon Central. [...] Keeping Carshalton & Wallington more-or-less intact. I think more people associate Crystal Palace with your borough than you realise. I also ended up adding that ward to a Croydon seat when I was fiddling with Boundary Assistant. It's not intact enough to save Tom Brake, according to some estimates! 1. Dursley, Thornbury and Yate is the nearest somewhat unsatisfactory seat. Parts of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire need tidying up. 2. Disregarding the easy targets of Mid Wales and 90% of the North East, I'll say Evesham & South Warwickshire. Five current seats covered (including just one ward each from two existing seats), looks horrid on the map, has a terrible name and involves the totally unnecessary and avoidable crossing of a county boundary. Genuinely abominable on every level. 3. The unchanged seats, Devonwall and minimal changes in Bristol are all excellent. If I have to pick one I'll say Plymouth North, because the Commission resisted the temptation to cross the Tamar and they finally ditched the 'Moor View' name. 4. The disappearance of Meon Valley is to be welcomed. No new seat in areas with radical changes is that impressive, so I'll say Wigan. 5. I echo the defence of the replacement for Mid Dorset by minionofmidas above, but I'll try to be original and nominate Clitheroe & Colne instead. Has that come in for much stick? I'm not sure, but oh well. I quite like it.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 16, 2016 21:34:54 GMT
I thought we might collect here the best and worse things from the provisional recommendations, so please nominate: 1. The single worst recommendation in your area. 2. The single worst recommendation in the country. 3. The single best recommendation in your area. 4. The single best recommendation in the country. 5. A recommendation that most people might not like but which you think is good (or at least okay). (You don't have to do all five.) Of course you might want to add/change some of these when the Scottish proposals come out... 1) Clitheroe and Colne, plus half of Bamber Bridge, with ridiculous road connections through North Lancashire avoiding Clitheroe. 2) Sheffield Hallam and Stocksbridge 3) Southport including Tarleton rather than half of Formby 4) Non-terrible Devonwall 5) Bromsgrove and Droitwich
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 16, 2016 21:39:50 GMT
5. I echo the defence of the replacement for Mid Dorset by minionofmidas above, but I'll try to be original and nominate Clitheroe & Colne instead. Has that come in for much stick? I'm not sure, but oh well. I quite like it. Clitheroe with Colne is good, and IMO the best option, but the BCE version is ugly around the edges.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 16, 2016 22:02:26 GMT
1) Clitheroe and Colne, plus half of Bamber Bridge, with ridiculous road connections through North Lancashire avoiding Clitheroe. 2) Sheffield Hallam and Stocksbridge 3) Southport including Tarleton rather than half of Formby 4) Non-terrible Devonwall 5) Bromsgrove and Droitwich Ah, I'd forgotten that Clitheroe & Colne got the top half of Bamber Bridge. I'm pleased Southport didn't reach into Merseyside, but there was no need to include three wards from West Lancashire rather than two unless it was justified by neat knock-on seats nearby. The fact that Bamber Bridge has been split proves that this cannot have been the Commission's thinking. Bromsgrove & Droitwich is a good shout. I know many on here were tempted to leave Bromsgrove alone, but at least this proposal lies entirely within Worcestershire.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 16, 2016 22:21:38 GMT
1) Clitheroe and Colne, plus half of Bamber Bridge, with ridiculous road connections through North Lancashire avoiding Clitheroe. 2) Sheffield Hallam and Stocksbridge 3) Southport including Tarleton rather than half of Formby 4) Non-terrible Devonwall 5) Bromsgrove and Droitwich Ah, I'd forgotten that Clitheroe & Colne got the top half of Bamber Bridge. I'm pleased Southport didn't reach into Merseyside, but there was no need to include three wards from West Lancashire rather than two unless it was justified by neat knock-on seats nearby. The fact that Bamber Bridge has been split proves that this cannot have been the Commission's thinking. Bromsgrove & Droitwich is a good shout. I know many on here were tempted to leave Bromsgrove alone, but at least this proposal lies entirely within Worcestershire. The three West Lancashire wards should come as a set, and one of them probably has to be orphaned otherwise. I've just found extra justification for nominating Clitheroe and Colne - there's no reason for Bamber Bridge East to be there - you can move it to South Ribble without putting either seat out of quota.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 16, 2016 22:31:07 GMT
1) Clitheroe and Colne, plus half of Bamber Bridge, with ridiculous road connections through North Lancashire avoiding Clitheroe. 2) Sheffield Hallam and Stocksbridge 3) Southport including Tarleton rather than half of Formby 4) Non-terrible Devonwall 5) Bromsgrove and Droitwich Ah, I'd forgotten that Clitheroe & Colne got the top half of Bamber Bridge. I'm pleased Southport didn't reach into Merseyside, but there was no need to include three wards from West Lancashire rather than two unless it was justified by neat knock-on seats nearby. The fact that Bamber Bridge has been split proves that this cannot have been the Commission's thinking. Bromsgrove & Droitwich is a good shout. I know many on here were tempted to leave Bromsgrove alone, but at least this proposal lies entirely within Worcestershire. One main problem with keeping Bromsgrove intact is that Redditch needs to be expanded and it can realistically only expand westwards not southwards. Also, Evesham does not connect well in transport terms with Droitwich Spa despite being in the same district (Wychavon).
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 16, 2016 22:31:46 GMT
The three West Lancashire wards should come as a set, and one of them probably has to be orphaned otherwise. I've just found extra justification for nominating Clitheroe and Colne - there's no reason for Bamber Bridge East to be there - you can move it to South Ribble without putting either seat out of quota. I'm afraid I don't know the area well on the ground at all, but I can't help but notice that Southport would be in quota with just Hesketh and North Meols wards. On Boundary Assistant months ago, I put Tarleton into a seat called 'Skelmersdale and Ormskirk'. That doesn't make it an orphan ward by either possible definition, because it'd be reorientated from the current South Ribble constituency alongside Rufford. Right, I hadn't spotted that either. That certainly does make it more indefensible, but I can't be bothered to find another alternative answer for point 5 from the original post!
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 18, 2016 8:59:18 GMT
Ah, I'd forgotten that Clitheroe & Colne got the top half of Bamber Bridge. I'm pleased Southport didn't reach into Merseyside, but there was no need to include three wards from West Lancashire rather than two unless it was justified by neat knock-on seats nearby. The fact that Bamber Bridge has been split proves that this cannot have been the Commission's thinking. Bromsgrove & Droitwich is a good shout. I know many on here were tempted to leave Bromsgrove alone, but at least this proposal lies entirely within Worcestershire. One main problem with keeping Bromsgrove intact is that Redditch needs to be expanded and it can realistically only expand westwards not southwards. Also, Evesham does not connect well in transport terms with Droitwich Spa despite being in the same district (Wychavon). Yeah, the decision regarding Redditch, Bromsgrove and Droitwich is the correct one. (Somewhat surprised they didn't choose to rename Redditch "Redditch & Alvechurch". I guess someone will ask them to at the hearing, though...)
|
|