|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 21, 2016 0:50:39 GMT
On the off chance that Pat Glass' amendment ever passes, it is worth mentioning what would happen within the 2018 review of Parliamentary constituencies if we still had 650 constituencies and a 10% deviance limit.
In my region, this would result in three extra seats being created (61 compared to 58 now).
For example, Cambridgeshire would gain an extra seat under those alternative rules (note that if Ms Glass' amendment ever did pass, the electorate range would be 62,084 to 75,880):
1. Peterborough (70,623): Unchanged. 2. North West Cambridgeshire (65,951). Loses many rural villages at its southern end to Huntingdon & St Ives. 3. Huntingdon & St Ives (70,305). Loses St Neots and its heartland. 4. Cambridge (72,757). Now covers entire city. 5. North East Cambridgeshire (69,119). Now coterminous with Fenland. 6. Ely & Waterbeach (70,681). Most of the East Cambridgeshire district (but not Soham) plus villages north of the city of Cambridge. 7. South Cambridgeshire (71,814). Redrawn due to needing to donate some villages to the new seat of St Neots. Now stretches to Soham. 8. St Neots (63,437). A new seat. St Neots adds some villages in South Cambridgeshire west of the River Cam as Huntingdonshire's electorate would not be large enough for 4 seats under the alternative rules.
My home county of Hertfordshire would also gain an extra seat: 1. Watford (63,484). Coterminous with borough of Watford. 2. South West Hertfordshire (69,914). Largely based on pre-1983 SW Herts (i.e. including Bushey). 3. Hemel Hempstead (63,083). Loses outlying villages, now mostly just the town. 4. Welwyn Hatfield (63,690). Loses Welham Green and Brookmans Park, gains Tewin. 5. Hertford & Hoddesdon (62,618) Hertford connects better to Hoddesdon than it does to Bishop's Stortford, which is why the two towns in the current Hertford & Stortford constituency were in different constituencies until 1983. 6. Hitchin & Letchworth (68,088) The Hitchin part of Hitchin & Harpenden plus Letchworth and Baldock from North East Hertfordshire. Resembles Hitchin (1974-83)/North Herts (1983-97). 7. Royston & Stortford (72,584). Better connected than current NE Herts or Hertford & Stortford. 8. St Albans (64,913). Loses outlying rural wards, now mainly focused on St Albans and The Colneys. 9. Stevenage (70,653). Gains Chesfield, loses Datchworth. 10. Borehamwood (64,822). Rather awkward seat but on balance better than current Hertsmere. Stretches into Abbots Langley and Kings Langley. 11. Cheshunt & Potters Bar (73,330). Also contains Welham Green and Brookmans Park, since they have strong links to Potters Bar (and also Hatfield). 12. Harpenden (63,331) The 'new' seat in this plan; stretches to Berkhamsted and Tring along the lines of the old Hemel Hempstead constituency, albeit without the town of Hemel Hempstead itself.
As would the county of Suffolk:
1. West Suffolk (66,452) 2. Bury St Edmunds (63,038) Loses Stowmarket (which really needs its own constituency and in fact did before 1997) 3. Stowmarket (63,483) Most of Mid Suffolk district plus Framlingham. Similar to 1950-83 boundaries of Eye. 4. Lowestoft (67,814). As Waveney minus Kessingland, The Saints, and Bungay. 5. Ipswich West (70,243). The Ipswich suburbs outside the borough of Ipswich itself (like Kesgrave) mostly extend eastwards, not westwards. 6. Babergh (68,206). As South Suffolk minus the Clare ward of St Edmundsbury. Now coterminous with the Babergh district. 7. Woodbridge (62,892). Mainly Suffolk Coastal minus Felixstowe and plus rural villages currently in the Waveney constituency. 8. Ipswich East & Felixstowe (64,089). The 'new' seat that Suffolk gains. Note that the train line from Ipswich goes east to Felixstowe, so this constituency would make some sense.
As the aforementioned proposed amendment to the 2011 Parliamentary Constituencies Act has no realistic chance of passing, this exercise is mainly for academic interest hence why maps have not been attached for my examples.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 21, 2016 4:00:24 GMT
On the off chance that Pat Glass' amendment ever passes, it is worth mentioning what would happen within the 2018 review of Parliamentary constituencies if we still had 650 constituencies and a 10% deviance limit.
[...]
6. Ely & Waterbeach (70,681). Most of the East Cambridgeshire district (but not Soham) plus villages north of the city of Cambridge.
[...]
8. Ipswich East & Felixstowe (64,089). The 'new' seat that Suffolk gains. Note that the train line from Ipswich goes east to Felixstowe, so this constituency would make some sense.
As the aforementioned proposed amendment to the 2011 Parliamentary Constituencies Act has no realistic chance of passing, this exercise is mainly for academic interest hence why maps have not been attached for my examples. Interesting concept for a thread if it doesn't become too ASV-like.  Of course Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire both have cross-border proposed seats under the current rules, so this wouldn't be a question of those counties gaining or losing a whole constituency under the amendment. I think many people in other parts of the country would see 'Waterbeach' and assume a coastal town. I actually proposed an Ipswich East and Felixstowe seat in my submission to the Commission for your region. I suspect the BCE would find more radical deviations from the existing arrangements even more objectionable if we were staying with a 650-seat Commons, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 9:26:30 GMT
On the off chance that Pat Glass' amendment ever passes, it is worth mentioning what would happen within the 2018 review of Parliamentary constituencies if we still had 650 constituencies and a 10% deviance limit.
[...]
6. Ely & Waterbeach (70,681). Most of the East Cambridgeshire district (but not Soham) plus villages north of the city of Cambridge.
[...]
8. Ipswich East & Felixstowe (64,089). The 'new' seat that Suffolk gains. Note that the train line from Ipswich goes east to Felixstowe, so this constituency would make some sense.
As the aforementioned proposed amendment to the 2011 Parliamentary Constituencies Act has no realistic chance of passing, this exercise is mainly for academic interest hence why maps have not been attached for my examples. Interesting concept for a thread if it doesn't become too ASV-like. Of course Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire both have cross-border proposed seats under the current rules, so this wouldn't be a question of those counties gaining or losing a whole constituency under the amendment. I think many people in other parts of the country would see 'Waterbeach' and assume a coastal town. I actually proposed an Ipswich East and Felixstowe seat in my submission to the Commission for your region. I suspect the BCE would find more radical deviations from the existing arrangements even more objectionable if we were staying with a 650-seat Commons, unfortunately. But in this case a radical deviation from the existing arrangements is necessary because Suffolk would qualify for an 8th seat. Obviously with the current ruls, Suffolk is one of those counties which retains the same number of seats as currently and with most of than at or close to the quota, only some minor tinkering is required. If an 8th seat is created then by definition there must be more deviation from existing arrangements and most 8-seat plans I have seen for Suffolk involve some kind of Ipswich East & Felixstowe arrangement |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 9:32:05 GMT
On the off chance that Pat Glass' amendment ever passes, it is worth mentioning what would happen within the 2018 review of Parliamentary constituencies if we still had 650 constituencies and a 10% deviance limit.
In my region, this would result in three extra seats being created (61 compared to 58 now).
For example, Cambridgeshire would gain an extra seat under those alternative rules (note that if Ms Glass' amendment ever did pass, the electorate range would be 62,084 to 75,880):
1. Peterborough (70,623): Unchanged. 2. North West Cambridgeshire (65,951). Loses many rural villages at its southern end to Huntingdon & St Ives. 3. Huntingdon & St Ives (70,305). Loses St Neots and its heartland. 4. Cambridge (72,757). Now covers entire city. 5. North East Cambridgeshire (69,119). Now coterminous with Fenland. 6. Ely & Waterbeach (70,681). Most of the East Cambridgeshire district (but not Soham) plus villages north of the city of Cambridge. 7. South Cambridgeshire (71,814). Redrawn due to needing to donate some villages to the new seat of St Neots. Now stretches to Soham. 8. St Neots (63,437). A new seat. St Neots adds some villages in South Cambridgeshire west of the River Cam as Huntingdonshire's electorate would not be large enough for 4 seats under the alternative rules.
I'll come back to the Hertfordshire plans later - they look unnecessarily disruptive and how you end up with Kings Langley in a seat with Borehamwood is beyond my imagination, but naturally I'm happy with the return of the old SW Herts seat including Bushey. I assume that in the above you are not actually referring to Soham as I don't see how you can include most of East Ccambridgeshire in a seat but not Soham, which is in the centre of the district. I thought perhaps you meant Sawston but of course that is already in the South Cambs seat so I'm very confused. I think without more details descriptions that you really need to post maps, otherwise your intentions are not at all clear |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 21, 2016 9:39:12 GMT
The regional quota for Y&tH with 54 seats would be 68,927. Based on that, entitlements would be W Yorks 22.02 (retain 22 seats), S Yorks 13.82 (retain 14 seats), N Yorks (including York) 8.56 (currently 8 seats), East Riding (including Hull) 6.23, N & NE Lincs 3.37. So I think we're looking at crossing the N Yorks/East Riding border as well as the East Riding/N Lincs one, effectively transferring half a seat from TAFKAH to North Yorkshire. South Yorkshire doesn't need much change. Two existing seats, Rotherham and Barnsley Central, are too small, and ward boundaries have changed in Doncaster. 1. Don Valley 75,835. Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. Just below upper limit. 2. Doncaster Central 65,660. Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 3. Doncaster North 69,772. Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 4. Rother Valley 64,108. Loses Sitwell. 5. Rotherham 62,769. Gains Sitwell, loses Wingfield. 6. Wentworth 65,241. Compared with existing Wentworth & Dearne, gains Wingfield and loses the Dearne wards, no longer cross-borough. 7. Barnsley East 73,925. Gains Dearne wards, loses Worsbrough. 8. Barnsley Central 67,748. Gains Worsbrough. then Penistone & Stocksbridge and all Sheffield constituencies unchanged. This is slightly more change than the minimal change option, but I thought it was better to get rid of the cross-borough seat than to leave Dearne South orphaned in Wentworth. I'd like to get Broomhill back into Sheffield Hallam and Stannington out (as per J.G.Harston's proposal at the Fifth Review public inquiry) but given all the electorates are fine it would be very hard to persuade the Commission to do this... |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 21, 2016 10:41:26 GMT
Quick and dirty West Yorkshire, concentrating on fixing the seats outside the window rather than getting those inside but near the limits closer to quota:
1. Colne Valley 67,431. Loses Crosland Moor & Netherton.
2. Huddersfield 74,846. Gains Crosland Moor & Netherton.
3. Dewsbury 62,183. Loses Mirfield.
4. Spen 66,190. Compared with Batley & Spen, loses the two Batley wards and gains Mirfield.
5. Batley & Morley 74,680. As per current Commission proposal (i.e. the two Batley wards plus the Leeds component of Morley & Outwood).
6. Hemsworth 72,647. Loses Wakefield South, gains Wakefield Rural.
7. Wakefield 74,678. Loses Wakefield Rural, gains Wakefield South and Normanton.
8. Pontefract & Castleford 66,643. Compared with current N, P & C, loses Normanton.
9. Garforth & Outwood 70,441. The two Outwood wards from Wakefield, plus Rothwell, Kippax & Methley and Garforth & Swillington from Leeds.
10. Leeds Central 74,298. Loses Beeston & Holbeck, gains Gipton & Harehills.
11. Leeds East & Wetherby 63,090. Cross Gates & Whinmoor, Temple Newsam, Harewood, Wetherby.
12. Leeds North East 64,553. Loses Alwoodley, gains Killingbeck & Seacroft.
13. Leeds North West 72,698. Gains Alwoodley.
14. Leeds West 75,006. Gains Beeston & Holbeck.
15. Pudsey 68,624. Unchanged.
then existing Bradford and Calderdale seats unchanged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 11:51:22 GMT
On the off chance that Pat Glass' amendment ever passes, it is worth mentioning what would happen within the 2018 review of Parliamentary constituencies if we still had 650 constituencies and a 10% deviance limit. My home county of Hertfordshire would also gain an extra seat: 1. Watford (63,484). Coterminous with borough of Watford. 2. South West Hertfordshire (69,914). Largely based on pre-1983 SW Herts (i.e. including Bushey). 3. Hemel Hempstead (63,083). Loses outlying villages, now mostly just the town. 4. Welwyn Hatfield (63,690). Loses Welham Green and Brookmans Park, gains Tewin. 5. Hertford & Hoddesdon (62,618) Hertford connects better to Hoddesdon than it does to Bishop's Stortford, which is why the two towns in the current Hertford & Stortford constituency were in different constituencies until 1983. 6. Hitchin & Letchworth (68,088) The Hitchin part of Hitchin & Harpenden plus Letchworth and Baldock from North East Hertfordshire. Resembles Hitchin (1974-83)/North Herts (1983-97). 7. Royston & Stortford (72,584). Better connected than current NE Herts or Hertford & Stortford. 8. St Albans (64,913). Loses outlying rural wards, now mainly focused on St Albans and The Colneys. 9. Stevenage (70,653). Gains Chesfield, loses Datchworth. 10. Borehamwood (64,822). Rather awkward seat but on balance better than current Hertsmere. Stretches into Abbots Langley and Kings Langley. 11. Cheshunt & Potters Bar (73,330). Also contains Welham Green and Brookmans Park, since they have strong links to Potters Bar (and also Hatfield). 12. Harpenden (63,331) The 'new' seat in this plan; stretches to Berkhamsted and Tring along the lines of the old Hemel Hempstead constituency, albeit without the town of Hemel Hempstead itself.
As would the county of Suffolk: As I said I like the idea of putting Bushey back in SW Herts on an emotional level (because this is the seat I was in the first 14 years of my life, though I probably wasn't very aware of the fact for most of that period). I also have frequently expressed reservations about the coherence of Hertsmere as an entity. Nevertheless it is what it is - a borough that has existed for well over 40 years now and a constituency that has existed in this form for well over 30. It is one of relatively few constituencies in the whole country which is coterminous with the local authority. It would be absolute madness to break this into three parts and to create a Borehamwood seat which includes parts of four local authorities. There is literally zero connection between Kings Langley and Boreheamwood. If you avoid trying to break up Hertsmere, the solution here is really straightforward. All of Hertsmere, Watford and Three Rivers (SW Herts) work within the quotas on exactly the borough boundaries, As it happens Broxbourne and Welwyn HAtfield do too, but I'd say it makes sense here to keep Northaw-Cuffley in Broxbourne to equalise the electorates of those two seats and because that has been the arrangement for long time now and there is no need to change that. St Albans and Stevenage can be little change too - St Albans just needs to lose the bit of Three Rivers that it has and Stevenage just needs to lose the East Herts ward of Datchworth. The remaining four seats would be more or less the same as yours.  Watford - 63484 - Watford borough SW Herts - 66,161 - Three Rivers district Hertsmere - 69,825 - Hertsmere borough (unchanged seat) Hemel Hempstead - 70,741 - loses Ashridge and Watling wards - gains Bovingdon etc West Herts - 68,064 - Berko, tring and the rural north of DAcorum together with the 7 wards of St Albans district which are currently in HItchin & HArpenden St Albans - 67,099 - loses the Three Rivers element Welwyn Hatfield - 69,026 unchanged seat Broxbourne - 70,420 unchanged seat Hertford - 62,730 - as per Hertford & Stortford, loses Bishops Stortfird and gains the wards of Hertford Rural North, Hertfrod Rural South. Watton, Datchworth, Thundridge & Standon, Puckeridge NE Herts - 63,519 - less those wards listed above and the five Letchworth wards plus Baldock, gains Bishop's Stortford and Chesfield Stevenage - 65,649 - loses Datchworth & Aston Hitchin - 64,512 - Hicthin x 5 Letchworth x 5, Baldock, Cadwell, Kimpton, Hitchwood etc (Baldock East has to stay with NE Herts for the numbers to work which is slightly sub-optimal but i'd say that is the only flaw in this scheme and pretty minor - most of that ward is new estates outside the town) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 13:39:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 13:42:52 GMT
Don't know why they've come out so small so you can't read the writing. Thats a bit annoying as it's tedious to have to type all that out. Has AdminSTB put a limit on image sizes or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 16:57:02 GMT
The West Midlands county would need to lose just one seat. To be precise the four 'Black Country' boroughs would lose a seat with Brum, Cov and Solihull retaining the same number. Solihull is slightly too big for two whole seats though so needs to lose a ward from the Meriden seat. Theoretically, adding Castle Bromwich to Erdington is the only change necessary to bring all the seats in these three boroughs into quota. I would suggest some other changes though as I've never been very satisfied by the current Birmingham boundaries, nor those in Coventry for that matter. Unchanged seats here are Solihull, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham Yardley, Halesowen & Rowley Regis, Stourbridge  Coventry East (formerly Coventry NE) 73,304 - loses Foleshill, gains Binley & Willenhall Coventry North (formerly Coventry NW) 66,866 - gains Foleshill and St Michaels, loses Whobeley & Woodlands Coventry South - 69,861 gains Whoberley and Woodlands, loses St Michaels and Binley & Willenhall Meriden - 69,559 - loses Castle Bromwich Birmingham Edgbaston - 64,350 loses Bartley Green, gains Sparkbrook Birmingham Northfield - 70,048 loses Kings Norton, gains BArtley Green Birmingham Selly Oak - 66,181 - loses Billesley and Brandwood, gains Kings Norton and Moseley Birmingham Hall green - 73,99 - loses Moseley and Sparkbrook, gains Billesley and Brandwood Birmingham Ladywood - 65,414 - loses Aston and Nechells, gains Lozells and Handsworth Wood Birmingham Small Heath - 73,395 - Aston, Nechells, Bordelesly Green, Washwood Heath Birmingham Erdington - 75,641 Erdington, Tyburn, Hodge Hill, Shard End, Castle Bromwich Birmingham Perry Barr - gains Kingstanding and Stockland Green, loses Lozells and Handsworth Wood |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Dec 21, 2016 17:00:36 GMT
Don't know why they've come out so small so you can't read the writing. Thats a bit annoying as it's tedious to have to type all that out. Has AdminSTB put a limit on image sizes or something? No, I'm as puzzled as you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 17:06:54 GMT
Aldridge Brownhills - 67,141 gains Pheasey
Walsall - 73,248 - Blakenall, Bichills Leamore and the Bloxwichs frmo Walsall North, Pleck, Palfrey, Paddock, St Matthews from SOuth
Bilston & Willenhall - 63,632 - The Bilstons and the Wednesfields from Wolverhampton and the Willenhalls and Short Heath from Walsall
Wolverhampton East - 68,898 - Wolverhampton NE, less the Wednesfields, plusEast PArk, Ettingshall and Spring Vale
Wolverhampton West - 66,166 - Wolverhampton SW plus Blakenhall
Wednesbury - 63,184 (West Brom West)minus Oldbury, Tipton Green and Tividale, plus Friar Park and the Darlastons
West Bromwich - 62,252 (West Broim East) minus Friar PArk, plus St Pauls
Warley - 70,424 - loses St Pauls, gains Oldbury and Tividale
Dudley - 70,333 (Dudley North) loses Gornal and Sedgley, gains Netherton etc, Coseley East and Tipton Gren (shown incorrectly on map)
Kingswinford - 70,231 (Dudley South) lsoes Netherton etc, gains Gornal and Sedgley
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 21, 2016 17:07:35 GMT
Don't know why they've come out so small so you can't read the writing. Thats a bit annoying as it's tedious to have to type all that out. Has AdminSTB put a limit on image sizes or something? No, I'm as puzzled as you are. It's probably photobucket - its being a right pain in the arse lately |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 22, 2016 8:45:24 GMT
The regional quota for Y&tH with 54 seats would be 68,927. Based on that, entitlements would be W Yorks 22.02 (retain 22 seats), S Yorks 13.82 (retain 14 seats), N Yorks (including York) 8.56 (currently 8 seats), East Riding (including Hull) 6.23, N & NE Lincs 3.37. So I think we're looking at crossing the N Yorks/East Riding border as well as the East Riding/N Lincs one, effectively transferring half a seat from TAFKAH to North Yorkshire. Lincolnshire has an entitlement of 7.56 so the best bet would be to link N and NE Lincs with that county. That leaves the East Riding in Hull with 6.22 so you would just have to have a N Yorks/E Riding seat. The three wards covering the Goole area equate to 0.31 of a seat so removing that area (which of course isn;t really the East Riding) would work best and it could be linked with Selby |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 22, 2016 12:22:22 GMT
Pete Whitehead , you could also link it back with Rutland as was the situation from 1918-83: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutland_and_Stamford_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
This would in fact make things much easier for Lincolnshire given the disparity in current constituency sizes in that county.
This gives:
1. Rutland & Stamford (72,570) Recreates 1918-83 seat of the same name.
2. Spalding (63,636) The South Holland district (Deepings not included)
3. Grantham (62,597). Grantham and Stamford are quite poorly connected, and in fact were not in the same constituency until 1997.
4. Sleaford & North Hykeham (67,519). Loses rural parts near Grantham.
5. Lincoln (67,115) Unchanged.
6. Boston & Skegness (74,584). Expanded to ease problems in Louth & Horncastle.
7. Gainsborough (72,401). Coterminous with West Lindsey district.
8. Louth & Horncastle (68,214). Loses southern rural wards to Boston & Skegness.
NB: Rutland and Leicestershire are not joined at the hip!
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 22, 2016 22:36:29 GMT
NB: Rutland and Leicestershire are not joined at the hip!
This cannot be emphasised enough in all correspondence to the Commission. Anyway, turning to my region: under the amendment, the South West would be allocated 57 seats – 2 more than at present and 4 more than under the ongoing review. Unlike in the current review, Devon and Cornwall could be considered separately, for the same number of seats as at present. Unlike in the current review, Dorset and Wiltshire could be considered separately, for the same number of seats as at present. Like in the current review, Somerset could be considered alone, but with an extra seat allocated, raising its number of constituencies from 9 to 10. Unlike in the current review, Bristol should probably not be considered separately and could instead be combined with Gloucestershire into a sub-region that would overall have one more seat than it currently does. I find the existing arrangement in Dorset wholly inadequate, but for the other 3 counties who'd keep their allocation, it's easily possible to produce quick and dirty minimal change proposals... SWINDON NORTH (74,268) — Loses Blunsdon & Highworth ward. SWINDON SOUTH (65,684) — as current seat. CHIPPENHAM (73,957) — as current seat, aligned to new divisional boundaries. DEVIZES (66,955) — as current seat, aligned to new divisional boundaries. SALISBURY (68,719) — as current seat, aligned to new divisional boundaries. WILTSHIRE NORTH (73,775) — Gains Blunsdon & Highworth ward. WILTSHIRE SOUTH (71,952) — as current Wiltshire SW, aligned to new divisional boundaries. ST IVES (64,033) — as current seat, aligned to new divisional boundaries. CAMBORNE & REDRUTH (62,778) — as current seat, aligned to new divisional boundaries. TRURO & FALMOUTH (62,739) — loses Newlyn & Goonhavern. ST AUSTELL & NEWQUAY (68,659) — gains Newlyn & Goonhavern; loses Fowey & Tywardreath and St Columb Major. BODMIN, BUDE & LAUNCESTON (66,933) — as current Cornwall N plus St Columb Major. LISKEARD (68,822) — as current Cornwall SE plus Fowey & Tywardreath. BARNSTAPLE & ILFRACOMBE (73,240) — as current Devon N. BIDEFORD & TAVISTOCK (75,496) – as current Devon W & Torridge, less Winkleigh ward. DEVON CENTRAL (75,800) — as current seat, plus Westexe and Winkleigh. EXETER (71,404) — unchanged. EXMOUTH (74,469) — as current Devon E, less Sidmouth Rural. IVYBRIDGE, PLYMSTOCK & PLYMPTON (67,971) — as current Devon SW, aligned to new ward boundaries. NEWTON ABBOT (67,896) — unchanged. PLYMOUTH NORTH (65,905) — as current Plymouth Moor View. PLYMOUTH SOUTH (68,987) — as current Plymouth Sutton & Devonport. TIVERTON & HONITON (73,972) — gains Sidmouth Rural; loses Westexe. [the existing seat is *just* within the upper end of the changed quota, but needs to be altered due to Devon E being over the limit.] TORBAY (71,459) — unchanged. TOTNES (66,166) — as current seat, aligned to new ward boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 23, 2016 17:12:15 GMT
On the off chance that Pat Glass' amendment ever passes, it is worth mentioning what would happen within the 2018 review of Parliamentary constituencies if we still had 650 constituencies and a 10% deviance limit.
In my region, this would result in three extra seats being created (61 compared to 58 now).
For example, Cambridgeshire would gain an extra seat under those alternative rules (note that if Ms Glass' amendment ever did pass, the electorate range would be 62,084 to 75,880):
1. Peterborough (70,623): Unchanged. 2. North West Cambridgeshire (65,951). Loses many rural villages at its southern end to Huntingdon & St Ives. 3. Huntingdon & St Ives (70,305). Loses St Neots and its heartland. 4. Cambridge (72,757). Now covers entire city. 5. North East Cambridgeshire (69,119). Now coterminous with Fenland. 6. Ely & Waterbeach (70,681). Most of the East Cambridgeshire district (but not Soham) plus villages north of the city of Cambridge. 7. South Cambridgeshire (71,814). Redrawn due to needing to donate some villages to the new seat of St Neots. Now stretches to Soham. 8. St Neots (63,437). A new seat. St Neots adds some villages in South Cambridgeshire west of the River Cam as Huntingdonshire's electorate would not be large enough for 4 seats under the alternative rules.
I'll come back to the Hertfordshire plans later - they look unnecessarily disruptive and how you end up with Kings Langley in a seat with Borehamwood is beyond my imagination, but naturally I'm happy with the return of the old SW Herts seat including Bushey. I assume that in the above you are not actually referring to Soham as I don't see how you can include most of East Ccambridgeshire in a seat but not Soham, which is in the centre of the district. I thought perhaps you meant Sawston but of course that is already in the South Cambs seat so I'm very confused. I think without more details descriptions that you really need to post maps, otherwise your intentions are not at all clear I presume he's splitting East Cambridgeshire along the Great Ouse. I think you might have some trouble selling two East Cambridgeshire-South Cambridgeshire seats, but if you don't do this and do decide to pair St Neots with bits of South Cambridgeshire, you generally end up with an exceedlingly ugly seat stretching round Cambridge on three sides. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jun 7, 2017 14:52:41 GMT
Alternate Scotland proposals 58 Seats  1. Galloway, Carrick & Cumnock - 81,623 (Tory - SNP marginal) [ward splits in Abbey + Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton] 2. Dumfries - 68,407 (Safe Tory) [ward split in Abbey] 3. Ayr - 68,399 (Safe Tory) [ward split in Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton] Due to depopulation these ward splits should fit the proposed quota  4. Renfrewshire North & Inverclyde - 78,957 (SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward split in Bishopton, Bridge of Weir & Langbank] 5. Renfrewshire South & Ayrshire North - 65,566 (SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward split in Bishopton, Bridge of Weir & Langbank] 6. Irvine & Arran - 69,382 (SNP - Labour marginal) 7. Paisley - 68,016 (SNP - Labour marginal) 8. Renfrewshire East - 67,706 (Tory - SNP marginal) 9. Kilmarnock & Loudoun - 71,101 (Safe SNP) Once again, thanks to depopulation some of the boundaries from the 2013 zombie review can be used here.  10. Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - 69,726 (Safe Tory) 11. East Lothian - 76,153 (Labour - SNP - Tory marginal) [Ward Split in Musselburgh West + Musselburgh East and Carberry] Everything south of the A1 in these wards to be in the Midlothian constituency. 12. Midlothian - 65,308 (Labour - SNP marginal) [Ward Split in Musselburgh West + Musselburgh East and Carberry] Everything south of the A1 in these wards to be in the Midlothian constituency. 13. Lanark & Peebles - 63,400 (Tory - SNP marginal)  14. East Fife - 65,743 (SNP - Lib Dem - Tory marginal) 15. Glenrothes & Cowdenbeath - 67,267 (SNP - Labour marginal) 16. Kirkcaldy - 69,855 (Labour - SNP marginal) 17. Dunfermline & West Fife - 65,098 (SNP - Labour marginal)  18. Moray & Nairn - 63,138 (Tory - SNP marginal) 19. Banff & Buchan - 72,400 (Tory - SNP marginal) 20. Gordon - 73,521 (Tory - SNP marginal) 21. Kincardine & Royal Deeside - 63,053 (Safe Tory)  22. Angus - 62,649 (Tory - SNP marginal) 23. North Perthshire - 72,831 (Tory - SNP marginal)  24. Caithness, Sutherland, Ross & Cromarty - 73, 147 (SNP - Lib Dem marginal) [Ward splits in Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh + Aird and Loch Ness, boundaries the same as the proposed Highland North constituency in the 2018 review] 25. Inverness - 75,850 (SNP - Tory marginal) [Ward splits in Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh + Aird and Loch Ness]  26. Argyll, Bute & Lochaber - 64,417 (SNP - Tory marginal)  27. West Dunbartonshire - 77,006 (SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward splits in Milngavie and Bearsden North] 28. East Dunbartonshire - 71,846 (Lib Dem - SNP marginal) [Ward splits in Milngavie and Bearsden North]  29. Ochil & South Perthshire - 71,813 (Tory - SNP marginal) 30. Stirling & Helensburgh - 71,506 (Tory - SNP marginal)  31. Edinburgh South West - 75,334 (Tory - SNP marginal) 32. Edinburgh South - 64,863 (Safe Labour) 33. Edinburgh East & Leith - 74,168 (SNP - Labour marginal) 34. Edinburgh West - 54,994 (SNP - Lib Dem marginal) 35. Edinburgh North - 59,305 (Tory - SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward splits abound]  36. Aberdeen North - 75,791 (Safe SNP) [boundaries the same as the proposed constituency in the 2018 review] 37. Aberdeen South - 74,444 (Tory - SNP marginal) [boundaries the same as the proposed constituency in the 2018 review]  38. Dundee West - 66,372 (Safe SNP) [Ward split in Monifeith and Sidlaw] 39. Dundee East - 59,548 (Safe SNP) [Ward split in Monifeith and Sidlaw]  40. East Kilbride - 59,393 (SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward split in Avondale and Stonehouse] 41. Hamilton - 67,836 (SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward split in Avondale and Stonehouse] 42. Rutherglen - 68,716 (Labour - SNP marginal)  43. Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Bonnybridge - 74,275 (SNP - Labour marginal) 44. Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill - 74,263 (Labour - SNP marginal) 45. Airdrie, Shotts & Braes - 74,919 (SNP - Labour marginal) 46. Motherwell & Wishaw - 75,208 (Labour - SNP marginal) 47. Falkirk & Bannockburn - 63,609 (SNP - Labour marginal) 48. Linlithgow - 64,744 (SNP - Tory - Labour marginal) 49. Livingston - 74,322 (SNP - Labour marginal)  50. Glasgow West - 69,287 (SNP - Labour marginal) 51. Glasgow North - 58,073(SNP - Labour marginal) 52. Glasgow East - 70,480 (Labour - SNP marginal) 53. Glasgow Central - 63,082 (SNP - Labour marginal) 54. Glasgow South East - 57,668 (SNP -Labour marginal) 55. Glasgow South - 57,731 (SNP - Labour marginal) 56. Glasgow South West - 70,032 (SNP - Labour marginal) [Ward splits abound] That makes 56 constituencies + Orkney and Shetland (Lib Dem) + Western Islands (SNP) for a total of 58 constituencies.
2017 Notional Results Scotland
Tory - 17 (Up 4) Labour - 8 (Up 1) SNP - 31 (Down 4) Lib Dem - 2 (Down 2) |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 5, 2017 10:14:45 GMT
Alternate Wales Proposals 32 Seats These constituencies assume that Ynys Mon recieves protected status  1. Wrexham - 69,763 (Labour - Tory marginal) 2. East Flintshire - 73,259 (Labour - Tory marginal) 3. West Flintshire - 65,796 (Labour - Tory marginal) 4. Denbigh - 74,069 (Labour - Tory marginal) 5. Montgomery & Meirionnydd - 70,201 (Safe Tory) 6. Caernarfon Nant Conwy - 70,705 (PC - Labour marginal) 7. Colwyn & Conwy - 75,035 (Tory - Labour marginal) 8. Ynys Mon - 49,287 (Safe Labour)  9. Llanelli - 65,868 (Safe Labour) 10. Carmarthen - 68,019 (Labour - PC - Tory marginal) 11. Ceredigion & North Pembrokeshire - 63,424 (PC - Tory - Lib Dem - Labour marginal) 12. Pembroke - 74,070 (Tory - Labour marginal) 13. Brecon, Radnor & Pontardawe - 68,664 (Safe Tory)  14. Bridgend - 67,388 (Safe Labour) 15. Ogmore & Port Talbot - 71,432 (Safe Labour) 16. Neath & Swansea East - 74,107 (Safe Labour) 17. Swansea West - 73,469 (Safe Labour) 18. Gower - 68,756 (Labour - Tory marginal)  19. Vale of Glamorgan - 63,537 (Tory - Labour marginal) 20. Cardiff South & Penarth - 62,311 (Safe Labour) 21. Cardiff West - 63,892 (Safe Labour) 22. Cardiff East - 65,536 (Safe Labour) 23. Cardiff North - 63,658 (Labour - Tory marginal)  24. Monmouth - 74,532 (Safe Tory) 25. Pontypool - 66,153 (Safe Labour) 26. Newport - 74,854 (Safe Labour) 27. Islwyn - 64,510 (Safe Labour) 28. Ebbw Vale - 62,655 (Safe Labour) 29. Caerphilly - 67,856 (Safe Labour) 30. Merthyr Tydfil & Mountain Ash - 69,236 (Safe Labour) 31. Rhondda & Aberdare - 67,375 (Safe Labour) 32. Pontypridd - 72,424 (Safe Labour) 2017 Notional Results Wales
 Tory - 6 (Down 2) Labour - 24 (Down 4) PC - 2 (Down 2) |
|
iolo
Non-Aligned
Posts: 287
|
Post by iolo on Jul 5, 2017 11:29:38 GMT
I find the above totally baffling, under any voting system that isn't based on tory fantasy.
|
|
Of course Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire both have cross-border proposed seats under the current rules, so this wouldn't be a question of those counties gaining or losing a whole constituency under the amendment.
