Let the great boundary rejig commence

[minionofmidas]

Wellington, Newport & Market Drayton is a horror. You might be better off scrapping the current order of constituencies and trying to unite Shrewsbury and Wellington and working things out around that. Figures might not work though. So maybe not.

That thought out of the way... you're combining with Cheshire in the wrong places, I think. If Oswestry isn't Shropshire its Welsh; it doesn't have much to do with anywhere in Cheshire. The area around Whitchurch and Market Drayton however... yeah. That would be a better way of going about things. Hope that doesn't wreck the Cheshire map, though.

Never mind what it does in Cheshire (whichever part of Cheshire goes into a Shropshire-dominated seat won't be happy. I think. Though yeah, it'd do strange things to the Crewe & Nantwich constituency) that means either extending the current Wrekin seat southward, adding the rural bits of Shrewsbury & Atcham to Ludlow, and trying to draw a Shewsbury & Oswestry seat; or else going with that Shrewsbury & Wellington idea, another seat from Newport to Ludlow, and a third all along the Welsh border. Either way it's possible that you're slicing by Shrewsbury so finely that you need to exclude some areas that really belong with the town.
Either could be tried, for all that.

[minionofmidas]

The former North Shropshire district, plus St Martin's parish (formerly of Oswestry, but united in a ward with areas to the east) minus Ruyton & Baschurch ward, is 47,520 electors and actually fits quite nicely with my cutoff bits of Cheshire. I seem to recall having actually calculated that earlier, then shied away from what it meant for Shrewsbury.
Former Oswestry district, minus St Martin's, is 28,172. Ruyton & Baschurch is 2919.
The rural parts of Shrewsbury & Atcham have only 19,195 electors - 15,789 outside of Tern ward which for obvious graphical reasons needs to stay with Shrewsbury.
Shrewsbury town (and Bayston Hill parish which is included in a Shrewsbury ward) is 55,881, plus 3406 in Tern, so Shrewsbury & Oswestry is certainly going to be too large.

Will get back to you on the merits of the Shrewsbury & Wellington idea in a minute.

[minionofmidas]

Market Drayton & other naming particles 76,409
Shawbury, The Meres, Saint Martin's and points east, two and a half random rural Cheshire wards as described earlier
Shrewsbury & Wellington 79,350
All Shrewsbury town wards, Tern, Shropshire; all the wards west of Whitchurch Drive (including the rural Wrockwardine ward), Telford & Wrekin
Telford 77,292
Current constituency plus Donnington and Hadley & Leegomery
Bridgnorth & Newport 72,565
Remainder of Telford & Wrekin, all of the former Bridgnorth district, and also the Cleobury Mortimer ward spanning the former Bridgnorth - South Shropshire boundary and the Clee ward formerly in S Shropshire, thus bringing us to right outside of Ludlow (or alternatively the Severn Valley ward formerly in Shrewsbury & Atcham, for 341 fewer inhabitants)
Oswestry & Ludlow (or maybe just Shropshire West) 74,085
Everything else

[minionofmidas]

New ward maps for Cheshire and Shropshire.

Actually, those are the current Cheshire wards - the two Cheshire councils are having new wards drawn up.  I think the relevant Boundary Commission has finalised its recommendations and the report is on Eric Pickles' desk waiting to be signed off.

I know. These are the wards currently in force - the ones we have populations for. (Yes, for Shropshire these are not the interim wards but the Commission-drawn ones - but that's because they're already in use.)

[minionofmidas]

Next project:

"Worcestershire 5.73, Warwickshire 5.37. Bit of a no-brainer, although there's the issue of p'raps putting part of rural west Worcestershire into one of the Herefordshire seats again: 1.84.
West Midlands 25.33 : Coventry 2.89, Solihull 2.10 (so one Meriden ward is put into a Coventry constituency. Bearable.), Birmingham 9.57, Sandwell 2.91 (could stand alone), Dudley 3.17 (couldn't), Walsall 2.49, Wolves 2.22. The minimum destruction approach is still pairing Birmingham with Walsall and surreptitiously dropping part of Wolves into Staffordshire. Lol. And Sandwell with Dudley o/c.
Staffordshire 8.61 + Stoke 2.44. I don't want to drop part of Wolves into here. "

Whether I will really put part of Wolves with Staffordshire remains to be seen. Might also be linked with Walsall and Brum. Of course, previous commissions would have wanted to keep 10 seats in Birmingham and create 5 seats in Walsall and Wolves, but we have a fixed national target now and besides, the Birmingham seats would be barely on target on average and the Walsall and Wolves seats not even that.

[minionofmidas]

Turns out all three Coventry seats are barely within tolerance at 72,490 Northeast, 73,030 Northwest, 73,346 South. So we might instead transfer anything between 2745 and 3017 of the voters of Blythe ward (10,047) from Meriden (currently 82,400) to Solihull (76,638) - perhaps Monkspath (which has a hilarious wiki page, check out the notable residents section!), or else Dickens Heath + some random rural residents if Monkspath is too large.

[minionofmidas]

Can I just say how great it is that we three have managed to keep this thread going for nearly 18 pages?

No. Shut up. [/postpad]

[minionofmidas]

Dudley and Sandwell might conceivably go

Dudley North 70,594+x
Gains the Coseley East ward currently in a Wolves constituency, and part of Brockmoor & Pensnett (9732) from Dudley S
Dudley South 71,788+x
Loses part of Brockmoor & Pensnett, gains Amblecote and Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood from Stourbridge
Stourbridge (& Cradley?) 78,649
loses Amblecote and Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood, gains Belle Vale, Hayley Green & Cradley South, and Cradley Heath & Old Hill. All three are currently in Halesowen & Rowley Regis, but the last is in Sandwell while the other two are in Dudley like the remainder of the constituency.
West Bromwich East 74,015
gains Wednesbury North and South from West Brom W but loses Greets Green & Lyng in exchange.
West Bromwich West & Rowley Regis 73,153+x
loses Wednesbury, gains Greets Green & Lyng, Rowley, Blackheath, and part of Langley (9109)
Warley & Halesowen 73,549+x
gains Halesowen N and S in Dudley; loses part of Langley

[minionofmidas]

I would rename the West Brom seats. Isn't it the case that WBW (as is) doesn't cover any of Brom itself?

I'd been wondering that. Not sure how much exactly of Sandwell is West Brom proper? Part of the problem is that the Black Country went through so many amalgamations of local government units even before 1974...

[minionofmidas]

Where does that leave Oldbury?

[minionofmidas]

Birmingham has 40 wards with an average population of 18,000. Until and unless they decide to split each ward in three and go single-member, every redistricting in Birminham is bound to produce nothing but horrors. Especially if done by someone with a map and next to no knowledge of the city - I think the best historical parallel to what I'm trying to do here is with the partitition of Punjab.

Six of the ten constituencies are currently legal, actually, but usually not by much, and I'm trying to draw seats somewhat above quota.
I've decided to go with what looks neat and can be done while remaining clueless. I've identified two 13 ward clusters consisting of a central ward that will be split three ways, and 3x4 wards around it. In a third similar cluster, one of the constituencies is actually one Brum ward + most of Aldridge-Brownhills. Sutton Coldfield has been left alone (involving it would have meant splitting it in two or three.) West of that I have two alternative versions for two Wolves Proper seats - either e and w or n and s - a seat of the numerous towns between Walsall and Wolves (Edgefield, Willenhall, Darlaston - I had to include a bit of Walsall itself though), a Walsall seat. I still need to see what those Brum seats I have in mind actually come out as pop.-wise.

[minionofmidas]

Birmingham Selly Oak 73,548+x
Minus most of Selly Oak (18,297), plus Kings Norton. The other wards are Billesley, Bournville, and Brandwood.
Birmingham Northfield 72,809+x
minus Kings Norton, plus Bartley Green and western parts of Selly Oak
Birmingham Edgbaston 68,905+x
minus Bartley Green, plus Ladywood and central/northeastern portions of Selly Oak
77,853 on average.

The Eastern cluster (Hodge Hill, Yardley, Hall Green, and Nechells ward) doesn't work though - too many people.

[minionofmidas]

Birmingham Hodge Hill Hall Green. I meant to say Hall Green. 76,620
minus Sparkbrook, plus Acocks Green, this is now the four ward constituency.
Birmingham Yardley 71,968+x
minus Acocks Green, plus Shard End and part of Bordesley Green (19,690)
Birmingham Perry Barr 70,133+x
minus Oscott, plus Soho and part of Aston (19,252)
Birmingham Central(?) 57,575+x
Washwood Heath, Nechells, Sparkbrook and remainder of Aston and Bordesley Green
79,539 on average - this would have to be very finely sliced, or alternatively yet another ward split with a portion going to Hodge Hill Hall Green.

Birmingham Erdington 67,342+x
Plus Hodge Hill, minus part of Kingstanding (17,109)
Birmingham Sutton 74,877+x
Plus part of Kingstanding (which means it's not identical to the old UD anymore which means there's a pretext to give it a Brummie name, yay! )
Aldridge, Brownhills & Oscott 68,015+x
Loses Pelsall and Rushall-Shelfield, gains Pheasey Park Farm in Walsall and Oscott and part of Kingstanding in Birmingham
75,781 on average.

Walsall 73,410+x
Birchalls Leamore and Blakenall from Walsall N, Pelsall and Rushall-Shelfield from Aldridge-Brownhills, Paddock, Palfrey, Pleck and St Matthews from Walsall S.
Darlaston, Willenhall, Wednesfield & Bloxwich 82,739-x
Also includes Short Heath ward. Bloxwich East would be divided between this and Walsall. Suggestions for a shorter name welcome - this sounds Scottish.

Wolverhampton South 77,485
Current SE constituency minus the bit in Dudley plus Graiseley, Merry Hill and Penn
Wolverhampton North 73,658
remainder

or alternatively
Wolverhampton West 74,863
Current SW constituency plus Blakenhall and Oxley
Wolverhampton East 76,280
remainder

[minionofmidas]

More serious comment later, maybe.

Birmingham Yardley 71,968+x
minus Acocks Green, plus Shard End and part of Bordesley Green (19,690)

LOL

What's so funny?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Constituencies in Birmingham are traditionally named for wards. Sparkbrook is a nice name and an important one (at least as regards constituency names) in Birmingham's history.[/quote]Suggestion accepted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yo-Yo with Yam-Yam?
[/quote]Suggestion certainly not accepted. Especially as I don't get the reference.

[minionofmidas]

But if you're going to do that, part of Erdington ward (which has community of interest with Slutton) rather than part of Kingstanding (which... erm... doesn't).

Now that I think about it... it's perfectly unnecessary to involve Sutton Coldfield. And if I'm leaving the constituency unchanged, I'm leaving the name unchanged too.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahahaha... oh... dear Lord... I mean, there's a certain logic there but... LOL. The reaction would be something to see!

Also, pro-German gerrymandering obviously.

Had to be done. Lest that bitch comes back and messes up our politics.

[minionofmidas]

Hereford & South Herefordshire 72,245
unchanged. Horribly redundant name, though. I can see why they changed it from "Hereford", but given what they did to "Leominster" why didn't they just go with "South Herefordshire"? I didn't transfer enough of Worcs into the other seat to have any leeway to change this one.
North Herefordshire 73,647
gains the Tenbury, Teme Valley, and Lindridge wards from Worcestershire West - an area similar to (but somewhat smaller than) the one it included until 2010. 9% of the district is in Worcs, but I'm not going to call it N Herefordshire & Tenbury.
Worcester 72,965
Wyre Forest 76,774
Bromsgrove 73,430
all of these are constituencies that are not only of legal population already but also coterminous with districts of the same name. Which makes changes hard to envisage unless it really messed up the figures elsewhere.
Worcestershire West 74,392
Loses Tenbury, Teme Valley, Lindridge; gains Hartlebury, Ombersley, Drakes Broughton, Norton & Whittington in a strip north and south of Worcester.
Worcestershire East 72,952
This was always somewhat misnamed as Worcestershire Mid - it includes the southeast corner for god's sake - and getting more so with my changes. Loses the four wards listed just above, gains Inkberrow and the Redditch district ward of Astwood Bank & Feckenham.

If I wanted to neither split Redditch nor wholly redraw rural Worcestershire nor have more than one constituency cross into Warwickshire, I had no choice but to draw these districts somewhat undersized, which forced large and sometimes somewhat unfortunate districts in Warwickshire. Broadly it's a return to the pre 2010 map, including the oddball Rugby & Kenilworth pairing.

Redditch 79,087
Loses the more rural wards in Worcestershire, but gains a larger rural territory in Warwickshire instead: Tanworth, Studley, Sambourne, Alcester, Kinwarton, and Bidford & Salford wards. 73% of the seat are in Worcestershire.
Stratford on Avon 74,711
Remainder of district, Leam Valley ward in Rugby
Warwick & Leamington 78,037
Regains all the Warwick district wards it lost in 2010 (but not the bit of Stratford district that it used to include as well): Lapworth, Leek Wootton, Cubbington, Radford Semele (however you pronounce that)
North Warwickshire 77,541
Regains the Arley & Whitacre and Hartshill wards, and thus exactly as in 97-10.
Nuneaton 77,378
Loses these, gains Bulkington, Wolvey, Fosse, Avon & Swift, and even Earl Craven & Wolston wards from Rugby
Rugby & Kenilworth 78,657
The motheaten ugly remainders of Rugby and Warwick districts.

The one alternative I could try is pairing Kenilworth with Stratford, tossing a lot rural country southeast of Warwick into the Rugby seat (and a bit into the Warwick seat too.)

[minionofmidas]

Bear with me. The "least hassle, keep 10 out of 12 seats (or I guess nine out of 12) perfectly in character, abolish a seat in the middle/where there are low pop. totals" approach spells Stoke South & Stone. I can hear the howls of derision already.
I'm just posting it as a basis for discussion (and speaking of bases for discussion, Al, you haven't commented on my second Shropshire plan yet.)

Tamworth 74,761
gains Hammerwich ward
Lichfield 76,413
loses Hammerwich, gains Stafford borough wards of Chartley and Haywood & Hixon.
Cannock Chase 74,828
Unchanged. Based on district, too.
South Staffordshire 73,630
Unchanged. But somewhat misnamed.
Stafford 77,559
Loses Haywood & Hixon, gains Church Eaton, Gnosall & Woodseaves, Eccleshall
Burton 75,081
Unchanged
Newcastle-under-Lyme 77,883
gains the more rural wards currently in the Stone constituency, Madeley and Loggerheads & Whitmore (there is a place called "Loggerheads"? Seriously?)
Staffordshire Moorlands 77,952
Whole district. This is the seat I meant when I said one seat's character was changed.
Stoke-on-Trent North 75,029
Gains Newchapel ward currently in Moorlands constituency (though it was of legal population before).
Stoke-on-Trent Central 79,229
Gains Fenton and Weston & Meir Park wards. Odd looking additions, I know - there's a ward between them - but a) this saved us a ward split b) the ward between them is Longton North. To the south of which lays Longton South. Which sounded like they ought to remain together. Just as both Burslem wards are in N and both Hanley wards are in C.
Stoke-on-Trent South & Stone 75,842
Eh, yeah. What's left really. Stoke South minus Fenton and Weston & Meir Park, and seven Stafford wards: Stonefield & Christchurch, Saint Michael's, Walton (these three wards are the town of Stone), Forebridge, Barlaston & Oulton, Swynnerton, and Milwich

[minionofmidas]

If I wanted to neither split Redditch nor wholly redraw rural Worcestershire nor have more than one constituency cross into Warwickshire, I had no choice but to draw these districts somewhat undersized, which forced large and sometimes somewhat unfortunate districts in Warwickshire. Broadly it's a return to the pre 2010 map, including the oddball Rugby & Kenilworth pairing.

Redditch 79,087
Loses the more rural wards in Worcestershire, but gains a larger rural territory in Warwickshire instead: Tanworth, Studley, Sambourne, Alcester, Kinwarton, and Bidford & Salford wards. 73% of the seat are in Worcestershire.
Stratford on Avon 74,711
Remainder of district, Leam Valley ward in Rugby
Warwick & Leamington 78,037
Regains all the Warwick district wards it lost in 2010 (but not the bit of Stratford district that it used to include as well): Lapworth, Leek Wootton, Cubbington, Radford Semele (however you pronounce that)
North Warwickshire 77,541
Regains the Arley & Whitacre and Hartshill wards, and thus exactly as in 97-10.
Nuneaton 77,378
Loses these, gains Bulkington, Wolvey, Fosse, Avon & Swift, and even Earl Craven & Wolston wards from Rugby
Rugby & Kenilworth 78,657
The motheaten ugly remainders of Rugby and Warwick districts.

The one alternative I could try is pairing Kenilworth with Stratford, tossing a lot rural country southeast of Warwick into the Rugby seat (and a bit into the Warwick seat too.)

I used to live in Stratford constituency and my personal feelings are that residents in Warwickshire would strongly object to being clumped in with Redditch.

Yeah, I think it might be better to expand Redditch southwestward, which will force a remap of the rural seats - which might also allow to make the seats in northern Warwickshire smaller and avoid Rugby & Kenilworth (though that would mean Stratford & Kenilworth. Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington will not go into one seat).

[minionofmidas]

Does Salford proper really need to be split into three?

No, it can be included in one. It does mean largeish seats in Bolton and Bury and very small ones in Manchester (and Oldham, but we're all counting on that) though.

[minionofmidas]

Bromsgrove 73,430
unchanged, coterminous with district
Worcestershire West 74,392
Loses Tenbury, Teme Valley, Lindridge; gains Hartlebury, Ombersley, Drakes Broughton, Norton & Whittington in a strip north and south of Worcester.
Worcestershire East 72,952
This was always somewhat misnamed as Worcestershire Mid - it includes the southeast corner for god's sake - and getting more so with my changes. Loses the four wards listed just above, gains Inkberrow and the Redditch district ward of Astwood Bank & Feckenham.

If I wanted to neither split Redditch nor wholly redraw rural Worcestershire nor have more than one constituency cross into Warwickshire, I had no choice but to draw these districts somewhat undersized, which forced large and sometimes somewhat unfortunate districts in Warwickshire. Broadly it's a return to the pre 2010 map, including the oddball Rugby & Kenilworth pairing.

Redditch 79,087
Loses the more rural wards in Worcestershire, but gains a larger rural territory in Warwickshire instead: Tanworth, Studley, Sambourne, Alcester, Kinwarton, and Bidford & Salford wards. 73% of the seat are in Worcestershire.
Stratford on Avon 74,711
Remainder of district, Leam Valley ward in Rugby
Warwick & Leamington 78,037
Regains all the Warwick district wards it lost in 2010 (but not the bit of Stratford district that it used to include as well): Lapworth, Leek Wootton, Cubbington, Radford Semele (however you pronounce that)
North Warwickshire 77,541
Regains the Arley & Whitacre and Hartshill wards, and thus exactly as in 97-10.
Nuneaton 77,378
Loses these, gains Bulkington, Wolvey, Fosse, Avon & Swift, and even Earl Craven & Wolston wards from Rugby
Rugby & Kenilworth 78,657
The motheaten ugly remainders of Rugby and Warwick districts.

The one alternative I could try is pairing Kenilworth with Stratford, tossing a lot rural country southeast of Warwick into the Rugby seat (and a bit into the Warwick seat too.)

I used to live in Stratford constituency and my personal feelings are that residents in Warwickshire would strongly object to being clumped in with Redditch.

Yeah, I think it might be better to expand Redditch southwestward, which will force a remap of the rural seats - which might also allow to make the seats in northern Warwickshire smaller and avoid Rugby & Kenilworth (though that would mean Stratford & Kenilworth. Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington will not go into one seat).

West Worcestershire (or Malvern & Droitwich) 78,918
Malvern Hills district except for the three wards ceded to the N Herefordshire seat; Droitwich and three rural wards west of it
Bromsgrove 75,334
gains Dodderhill. Which won't go into West and looks really, really wrong in Redditch where I wanted to place it at first.
Redditch 73,553
gains Bowbrook, Pinvin and Upton Snodsbury wards
Evesham 79,279
Remaining southern half of Whichavon district (64% of constituency); the whole southwestern tier of Warwickshire from Alcester to Long Compton plus Kinwarton, Aston Cantlow and Bardon (mostly because a different arrangement looks even odder on the map)
Warwick & Leamington 73,240
gains Radford Semele and Cubbington
Stratford & Kenilworth 76,452
Remainder of Warwick district, Stratford and eleven further wards. Difficult to explain otherwise so I'll list: Sambourne, Studley, Tanworth, Henley, Claverdon, Snitterfield, Wellesbourne, Ettington, Vale of the Red Horse, Kineton, Burton Dassett.If the two wards I added to Warwick & Leamington were here instead it'd make a perfect donut.
Alternatives include exchanging the three western wards around Studley for the four wards in the far southern corner of the county now included in Evesham (for a net gain of 230 persons here); or even Warwick & Stratford and Leamington & Kenilworth districts (though we'd need to find some two thousand extra persons to put into the latter.)
North Warwickshire 77,541
Regains the Arley & Whitacre and Hartshill wards, and thus exactly as in 97-10
Nuneaton 75,232
loses these, gains Bulkington, Wolvey, Fosse, and Earl Craven & Wolston from Rugby
Rugby 76,655
Remainder of borough, Long Itchington, Southam, Stockton & Napton, Fenny Compton and Harbury wards of Stratford district.

[minionofmidas]

Bear with me. The "least hassle, keep 10 out of 12 seats (or I guess nine out of 12) perfectly in character, abolish a seat in the middle/where there are low pop. totals" approach spells Stoke South & Stone. I can hear the howls of derision already.
I'm just posting it as a basis for discussion (and speaking of bases for discussion, Al, you haven't commented on my second Shropshire plan yet.)

Tamworth 74,761
gains Hammerwich ward
Lichfield 76,413
loses Hammerwich, gains Stafford borough wards of Chartley and Haywood & Hixon.
Cannock Chase 74,828
Unchanged. Based on district, too.
South Staffordshire 73,630
Unchanged. But somewhat misnamed.
Stafford 77,559
Loses Haywood & Hixon, gains Church Eaton, Gnosall & Woodseaves, Eccleshall
Burton 75,081
Unchanged
Newcastle-under-Lyme 77,883
gains the more rural wards currently in the Stone constituency, Madeley and Loggerheads & Whitmore (there is a place called "Loggerheads"? Seriously?)
Staffordshire Moorlands 77,952
Whole district. This is the seat I meant when I said one seat's character was changed.
Stoke-on-Trent North 75,029
Gains Newchapel ward currently in Moorlands constituency (though it was of legal population before).
Stoke-on-Trent Central 79,229
Gains Fenton and Weston & Meir Park wards. Odd looking additions, I know - there's a ward between them - but a) this saved us a ward split b) the ward between them is Longton North. To the south of which lays Longton South. Which sounded like they ought to remain together. Just as both Burslem wards are in N and both Hanley wards are in C.
Stoke-on-Trent South & Stone 75,842
Eh, yeah. What's left really. Stoke South minus Fenton and Weston & Meir Park, and seven Stafford wards: Stonefield & Christchurch, Saint Michael's, Walton (these three wards are the town of Stone), Forebridge, Barlaston & Oulton, Swynnerton, and Milwich

No discussion has occurred but I've been thinking about it.

The Potteries (defined as Stoke and Newcastle-under-Lyme) will not go into three seats and will not fill four; there's no way to avoid that. But rather than clap on some completely different area maybe they can be padded out with Biddulph and odds and ends elsewhere? As a straight swap that means a just as bizarre Stone & Leek seat... but maybe I can exchange some wards here and there, involving the Burton and Lichfield seats, and come out with a presentable result. I'll go try in a minute.

There's two unrelated mini-errors with Stoke S & Stone anyways. "Forebridge" should read "Fulton" (Forebridge ward is in Stafford town), and the pop. is 75,847.

[minionofmidas]

Tamworth 74,761
gains Hammerwich ward
Lichfield 79,546
loses Hammerwich, Needwood, gains Stafford borough wards of Chartley, Haywood & Hixon, and Milford and the Cannock Chase ward of Rawnsley.
Cannock Chase 77,132
Loses Rawnsley, Norton Canes, gains Huntington & Hatherton and the three Penkridge wards.
South Staffordshire 79,164
Loses Huntington & Hatherton, gains Norton Canes and Wheaton Aston etc.
Stafford & Stone 79,206
Loses Haywood & Hixon, Milford, South Staffordshire parts, gains Church Eaton, Gnosall & Woodseaves, Eccleshall, Milwich, Barlaston & Oulton, Stone town wards (compared to current Stafford seat)
Burton 75,725
Loses Weaver, Churnet; gains Needwood
Newcastle-under-Lyme 73,150
gains the more rural wards currently in the Stone constituency, Madeley and Loggerheads & Whitmore (there is a place called "Loggerheads"? Seriously?); loses Audley & Bignall End
Staffordshire Moorlands 73,731
Whole district except for the Brown Edge & Endon, Bagnall & Stanley, and Werrington wards; Weaver and Churnet from Burton.
Stoke-on-Trent North 73,595
Gains Audley & Bignall End, Newchapel, and Brown Edge & Endon outside of the city, loses East Valley within it.
Stoke-on-Trent Central 75,340
Gains East Valley and (outside the city limits) Bagnall & Stanley and Werrington
Stoke-on-Trent South 76,862
Gains some extensions into northernmost Stafford district: Fulford and Swynnerton wards.

Adding Biddulph to Stoke N would have meant adding Uttoxeter to Burton Moorlands, which would have meant adding all the remaining territory just outside of Lichfield (that's not in Tamworth already) to Burton and a bizarre stretch of a Lichfield-to-Stone constituency. A prospect I balked at (though I since found out that a similar constituency, named Mid Staffordshire, existed from 1983 to 1997. And provided a memorable by-election in 1990.) So that got me to thinking... where do I want to put Stone? And the answer was Stafford, if it couldn't be the center of its own constituency anymore. (A Stone & Uttoxeter constituency might have looked okay too, except that the populations north and south of it were totally wrong - it didn't actually solve anything.) 'Kay then - what do I need to drop from Stafford to make that work? And the answer was Penkridge. Which wouldn't go into South Staffordshire... but with some alterations might go into Cannock Chase (though I dare say it doesn't belong there). And hence what I drew...

[minionofmidas]

Alternative version to do less violence to Cannock Chase:

Tamworth 74,761
gains Hammerwich ward
Lichfield 76,928
loses Hammerwich, Needwood, gains Stafford borough wards of Chartley, and Haywood & Hixon, and the Cannock Chase ward of Brereton & Ravenhill.
Cannock Chase 78,493
Loses Brereton & Ravenhill, gains the two Great Wyrley wards.
South Staffordshire 78,347
District excluding Great Wyrley; Church Eaton ward in Stafford district
Stafford & Stone 78,046
Loses Haywood & Hixon, South Staffordshire parts, gains Gnosall & Woodseaves, Eccleshall, Milwich, Stone town wards (compared to current Stafford seat)
Burton 75,725
Loses Weaver, Churnet; gains Needwood
Newcastle-under-Lyme 73,150
gains the more rural wards currently in the Stone constituency, Madeley and Loggerheads & Whitmore (there is a place called "Loggerheads"? Seriously?); loses Audley & Bignall End
Staffordshire Moorlands 78,622
Whole district except for the Brown Edge & Endon, Bagnall & Stanley, and Werrington wards; Weaver and Churnet from Burton, Fulford from Stafford Borough.
Stoke-on-Trent North 73,595
Gains Audley & Bignall End, Newchapel, and Brown Edge & Endon outside of the city, loses East Valley within it.
Stoke-on-Trent Central 75,340
Gains East Valley and (outside the city limits) Bagnall & Stanley and Werrington
Stoke-on-Trent South 75,202
Gains an extension into northern Stafford district: Barlaston & Oulton and Swynnerton wards.

[minionofmidas]

Market Drayton & other naming particles 76,409
Shawbury, The Meres, Saint Martin's and points east, two and a half random rural Cheshire wards as described earlier

Would it wreck the figures to reunite St Martins with Weston Rhyn? Or, alternatively, add them to whatever constituency Chirk is in

Presumably not; it would just mean needlessly splitting a ward. Which I tend to avoid, esp. if it also means being inable to provide exact pop. figures. And the St Martin's ward also includes part of Ellesmere Rural Parish, so, yeah. Besides, it looks pleasing graphically that-a-way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is included here. It's not as if we can go any lower here, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd much prefer "Shropshire March".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The draft legislation agrees with you - historical continuity is expressly struck from the list of things the Commission is to take into account, for one review only.