Let the great boundary rejig commence

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

No, but, seriously... the splitting of the two was an extremely stupid decision made by the boundary commissars. They don't belong in different constituencies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Severn Valley would be a much better fit than Clee; the latter should probably not be in a different constituency to Ludlow. But, yeah, this seems like a pretty logical constituency on the whole. What are you doing about the Corvedale ward? It also includes the Apedale, which was in South Shropshire district, not Bridgnorth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that 'Derbyshire Dales' managed to become a constituency name at the last review, I get the impression that some tool would nominate 'Shropshire Hills'. But I think Shropshire West (the name of a pre-1918 constituency) would the name the commission would prefer, though there might be demands to preserve the name of Ludlow.

Anyway, it's pretty absurd but no more absurd than the existing Ludlow constituency, tbh. Does Clun have much to do (or in common) with Oswestry? No. But it doesn't have anything to do with Bridgnorth either. And arguments about historical continuity (something I'm generally favourably disposed towards) obviously don't count when you decide to impose 5% limits on things and go for a big cut in the number of MPs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

One alternative would be to create three totally Potteries seats (say (just examples as I've not played with the figures) a NuL extending to Kidsgrove, a Stoke North extending as far as Bentilee and a Stoke South (a name that I'd like kept as it was for many years represented by one of the best people ever elected to the Commons) that's sort of Hanley-to-Longton) and then put the less 'pure' Potteries bits in with some other Staffordshire constituency.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

One alternative would be to create three totally Potteries seats (say (just examples as I've not played with the figures) a NuL extending to Kidsgrove, a Stoke North extending as far as Bentilee and a Stoke South (a name that I'd like kept as it was for many years represented by one of the best people ever elected to the Commons) that's sort of Hanley-to-Longton) and then put the less 'pure' Potteries bits in with some other Staffordshire constituency.

Are you proposing to remove some Stoke wards here? Filling up three constituencies to the brim (w/o ward splits) and starting from the southern end of Stoke gives you
Stoke South 77,935
Gains Stoke & Trent Vale
Stoke North or Central or whatever 79,543
Loses that; gains Burslem wards, East Valley
Newcastle-under-Lyme 78,559
Three northernmost Stoke wards, parts of NuL currently in Stoke N, eight quite urban wards from Chesterton to Town incl. points east. That's right, Town ward would be the southern tip of such a Newcastle-under-Lyme seat, nine wards of the current constituency of which six are  quite dense would be left out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Uh, yeah. I meant to add that bit, yeah. More genuinely suburban wards like Trentham & Hanford.

[minionofmidas]

Kent 13.77 + Medway 2.45. 16 seats together.
Surrey 10.80. Gonna be problematic keeping them all within the corridor, but at least it can be a minimum changes map as Surrey already has 11 constituencies.
East Sussex 5.18 + Brighton & Hove 2.53. Ugh. This is just barely, theoretically, possible to do with 8 seats... but probably better to use a sliver of Kent.
West Sussex 7.89. No prob.
Berkshire 7.89
Oxfordshire 6.23. Only barely feasible, and probably better to drop some of those populated parts by Reading into a Reading North constituency.
Buckinghamshire 4.89
Central Bedfordshire 2.53, Bedford 1.46
Luton 1.66
Hertfordshire 10.61
Essex 13.73 + Southend 1.67 + Thurrock 1.44.
Though technically only Luton *must* be paired, this strongly suggests a triple pairing. (Stand-alone Hertfordshire is going to be a f*ing bitch at 4% under average.)
Suffolk 7.12
Norfolk 8.50
Cambridgeshire 5.82 + Peterborough 1.50 A Norfolk/Cambridgeshire pairing. Just great.

Cornwall (with Scilly) 5.49
Devon 7.72 + Plymouth 2.37 + Torbay 1.36. The need for a Devonwall has been pointed out before, I think.
Dorset 4.35 + Poole 1.49 + Bournemouth 1.71 = 7.55
Hampshire 13.10 + Southampton 2.10 + Portsmouth 1.84 + Wight 1.45 = 18.49
Well... welcome back, Christchurch & Lymington! Portsmouth South & Ryde won't solve much... wonder if a different solution can be found, though?
North Somerset 2.05, Bristol 3.95, Swindon 2.00, Gloucestershire 6.05. Alas, they share a map with
Somerset 5.37, Banes 1.77; Wiltshire 4.52, South Gloucestershire 2.63. Wiltshire with South Gloucestershire... gosh it's ugly. Can't think of anything better right now though.

South of England here I come...

[minionofmidas]

Uh, yeah. I meant to add that bit, yeah. More genuinely suburban wards like Trentham & Hanford.

You'll have to provide a graded list of what parts of the city might be left out. Mind you, this approach will leave us coming out with a slightly sanitized version of Stoke South & Stone.

[minionofmidas]

A NuL minus Keele and Halmerend plus the parts currently in Stoke N is 78,699. It has an oddlooking western boundary though, but I don't think the graphically appealing solution (removing Silverdale & Parksite) is going to be popular with anybody.
Stoke N plus Northwood & Beeches Head, Abbey Green, Bentilee & Townend is too large at 82,661. Stoke S consisting of C minus those three plus Fenton and the Longton wards is 63,436, to which could be added Blurton and half a ward from N... or alternatively we could put the Bentilee ward back into S for two very small (but legal) constituencies.
That leaves Trentham & Hanford, the two wards with Meir Park in their name, and optionally Blurton to go into a Stone seat, along with the rural fringe of NuL.

EDIT: Leaving the southern boundary untouched, that is 69,984 excluding Blurton. As Moorlands would need to take in Newchapel it needs to drop a ward in the southwest - using Forsbrook works nicely at 76,554 in Moorlands and 74,166 in Stone & Meir Park (or whatever we call it). Which thus excludes Blurton.

[minionofmidas]

The far Southeast has hellish little pitfalls. Surrey has only two seats that are below quota - Reigate (which can be fixed easily enough, if not very elegantly, by adding Chaldon ward from East Surrey), and Spelthorne. Which of course is a constituency unchanged since 1945 or somesuch, is not historically in Surrey, is across the Thames from the remainder of Surrey, and is exclusively fronted across the Thames by towns of the kind of size I hate to split. I thought of adding Colnbrook with Poyle ward - the suburban Slough borough ward in Windsor constituency - which works fine, just fine - except that Windsor is undersized as is and I really don't know where to expand it, except maybe deeper into Slough or across the Thames in Oxfordshire at which I haven't looked yet. (It cuts very finely by Bracknell town as is, Maidenhead is just barely legal right now). Reading W is undersized too, no issues there though.
East Sussex which I looked at first is fine, just fine, except that everything around Brighton is undersized. Which is an obvious problem at Hove. It's not undersized by much, either. I actually tried going through West Sussex but that doesn't seem to work out either.
I'm leaving it at that for now.

[minionofmidas]

Gee. Quite possibly the only solution to Windsor and Spelthorne that doesn't involve marginally redrawing two dozen seats (I gave up after unintentionally drawing the necessary minor corrections for stand-alone Oxfordshire and Bucks maps in the one direction, then again halfway through Surrey after deciding to cross the Berkshire-Surrey border twice. This isn't going to lead anywhere) is slapping half of Hampton (that's Hampton, Twickenham, Greater London) onto Spelthorne and a random central Slough ward onto Windsor... that would solve the issue, mind.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Love the cat box thing, fwiw.

[minionofmidas]

Love the cat box thing, fwiw.

That's very nice and all, but I need some guidance on the southeast. Sussex is quite as much of a bitch as those Windsory/Spelthorney parts.

[minionofmidas]

Righto, I've worked it out that I can put a bit of Oxfordshire (rural parts near Bicester - the Banbury seat is too large at current, and an ugly map would have ensued with or without the county line cross) into Buckingham and a bit of Buckinghamshire (Burnham) into Slough and make ends meet.
Of course I could have crossed from Oxfordshire into Berkshire instead... that county line is fake anyways... but the problem is that there wasn't a problem in that region, if that makes sense.

Sussex will be bad too...

Surrey East 75,456
loses Chaldon ward
Reigate 72,624
gains Chaldon ward

No changes to
Epsom & Ewell 76,052
Esher & Walton 75,716
Guildford 76,836
Mole Valley 72,110
Runnymede & Weybridge 72,455
Surrey Heath 77,342
Surrey South West 76,719
Woking 73,064

Spelthorne 74,642
gains Horton & Wraysbury ward from Windsor, Berkshire

Newbury78,468
unchanged
Reading West 78,187
gains Sulhamstead and Burghfield
Reading East 74,855
unchanged
Wokingham 78,508
loses Sulhamstead and Burghfield, gains Finchampstead North and South
Bracknell 73,860
loses Finchampstead, gains (as it really, really should) the ward with the strange name of "Warfield Harvest Ride". Which is in Bracknell, but currently included in the Windsor constituency.
Maidenhead 72,568
unchanged
Windsor & Slough East 76,248
loses Warfield Harvest Ride and Horton & Wraysbury (see above, Spelthorne); gains three wards in Slough in addition to the one it already holds, ie Foxborough, Kederminster, Langley Saint Mary's, and has been renamed according.
Slough West (and Burnham, but I don't think it's really important enough. I mean, look at Reading.) 72,548
Loses three Slough wards, gains five South Bucks wards with a population about equal to two of those three lost ones: Dorney & Burnham S, Burnham Lent Rise, Burnham Church, Burnham Beeches, Taplow

Beaconsfield 73,224
Loses these five, gains the Chiltern wards of Austenwood, Gold Hill, Central, and Chalfont Common. "Central" seems to mean Chalfont Saint Peter Central, btw, which is the area these wards describe.
Wycombe 73,306
unchanged
Chesham & Amersham 75,271
Loses Chalfont St Peter, gains the Wycombe district wards currently in the oddly-shaped Aylesbury constituency. (Chesham & Amersham is undersized on current boundaries.)
Aylesbury 73,320
Loses these, gains the two Wycombe wards in Buckingham constituency instead, and the ward of Bierton just outside of Aylesbury town. There have been three minimal transfers of territory between Buckingham and Aylesbury wards, two of which affect single-digit numbers of electors while the third does not affect any voters, and I've corrected for these, too.
Buckingham 75,366
Loses three wards as described, gains the Northeastern Oxfordshire wards of Fringford, Launton, Ambrosden & Chesterton, Otmoor, and Kirtlington.
Banbury 77,598
Loses Fringford, Launton, and Ambrosden & Chesterton (the last of which was transferred for the sake of this constituency rather than Buckingham). Moving Bicester out would have involved far too many people.
Henley 74,770
Loses Otmoor and Kirtlington; gains Radley and Kennington & South Hinksey. This was a hard decision; it meant crossing the Thames. I didn't much like the alternatives of splitting the towns of Kidlington or Wallingford (which is across the Thames too, anyways). Or putting one Oxford ward in. There is a road link, strictly speaking - in one direction. (The eastern half of the bridge, and the access road to it, form the Oxford city limit and thus the constituency boundary too.) The next bridge is at Abingdon, of course, and thus not far off either.
Oxford East 76,177
Loses the Carfax ward. I would have liked to lose Hinksey Park and Holywell as well and thus put the line at the Cherwell river, but it doesn't work that way. No builtup territory just outside the city limit to put in; no more than there's quasi-rural territory within the city. Really rather remarkable how the city and the conurbation are identical on the east side of Oxford. Constituency was oversized previously.
Oxford West & Abingdon 76,332
Gains Carfax, loses Radley and Kennington & South Hinksey
Witney 78,141
unchanged
Wantage 78,777
unchanged

[minionofmidas]

Kent 13.77 + Medway 2.45. 16 seats together.
East Sussex 5.18 + Brighton & Hove 2.53. Ugh. This is just barely, theoretically, possible to do with 8 seats... but probably better to use a sliver of Kent.
West Sussex 7.89. No prob.

Yeah, I've finally taken my own advice, and also "cheated" by advocating multiple wardsplitting in Brighton. After that it's perfectly easy (well, Kent wasn't, but that was a given. One seat abolished and just too damn many options. Let's see if I can even recreate what I drew, my notes are very cryptic this time... )
Of the current 17 constituencies in Kent, 6 are on target (of which two had to be redrawn on account of their neighbors, two were redrawn just because, and two were left unchanged), 10 are undersized, and Ashford is oversized.

Graves"ham" 74,807
District (= current, undersized constituency) and that one Sevenoaks ward currently in Dartford constituency, Hartley & Hodsoll Street
Dartford 73,716 (or 77,093)
District, Sevenoaks ward of Farningham, Horton Kirby & South Darenth. And optionally Hextable as well.
Sevenoaks 78,400 (or 75,023)
Remainder of district, including a sizable portion currently in Tonbridge & Malling.
Tonbridge & Malling 76,421
District excluding Aylesford; Blue Bell Hill & Walderslade, and Burham, Eccles & Wouldham wards. (So loses the Sevenoaks bit but gains Snodland and Larkfield. Which I thinks rather changes its character. And Ditton.)
Tunbridge Wells 79,183
Whole district
Rochester & Strood 74,269
unchanged
Gillingham & Chatham 78,463
Medway part of Chatham & Aylesford constituency, Gillingham N and S, Twydall, Watling wards
Rainham & Mid Kent 78,204
This is ugly. four remaining Medway wards (Rainham N, C, S and Hempstead & Wigmore), three Tonbridge & Malling wards, and eight of the thirteen Maidstone wards in the abolished Faversham & Mid Kent constituency (see below for list of the other five). Exchanging Rainham North for Lordswood & Capstone makes for a nicer mapshape (and 96 more persons here and 96 fewer in Gillingham & Chatham) but there's the name issue. Also seems to cut right through built-up territory in worse ways.
Maidstone 78,208
Loses the two Tunbridge Wells wards (and thus a considerably bit of Weald, not sure it ought to be excised from the name. Maidstone & Low Weald might also work.), gains Park Wood, Boughton Monchelsea & Chart Sutton, Sutton Valence & Langley, Leeds, and Headcorn.
Sittingbourne & Sheppey 75,509
unchanged
Canterbury (& Faversham, though I prefer the simpler form) 75,088
Loses Chestfield & Swalecliffe, Gorrell, Harbour, and Tankerton; gains Faversham part of Swale district / Faversham & Mid Kent constituency
Whitstable, Herne Bay & Thanet West 75,205
Open for suggestions on name. Compared to current Thanet N, gains abovelisted Whitstable area from Canterbury, loses Margate Central, Dane Valley, and Salmestone. Now just 34% of the constituency in Thanet district (even on current boundaries it's just 55%).
Thanet East 77,282
Compared to current Thanet South, gains three wards in Margate, loses Little Stour & Ashstone
Dover 76,970
Gains Little Stour & Ashstone. (So whole district except Sandwich.)
Folkestone & Hythe 73,479
Shepway district (loses that one Ashford ward, Saxon Shore. Which is not on the shore.)
Ashford 75,453
Gains Saxon Shore, loses the Tenterden area: Saint Michael's, Rolverden & Tenterden W, Tenterden N, S, Isle of Oxney.

Yes, yes I could.

Bexhill, Battle & Tenterden 75,624
Loses Frant/Withyham, Heathfield E, Heathfield N & C (odd cardinal points caused by the fact that Frant/Withyham extends into Heathfield), and Herstmonceaux; gains the Tenterden area. Tenterden's actually rather smaller than Heathfield. Then again, so is Battle. 13% of the constituency is in Kent. Oh yeah, and there's been a minor ward change that affects three electors, which have been moved into Lewes to realign with ward boundaries.
Hastings & Rye 77,022
Eastbourne 77,272
unchanged
Wealden 74,012
Gains the Heathfield area, loses Hailsham C&N, E, S&W, Hellingly
Lewes 74,549 (or 76,168)
Gains the Hailsham area, loses the two Newhaven wards and probably Kingston ward. Of course this is somewhat misnamed as "Lewes", but that's nothing new - the largest settlement is and remains Seaford.
Hove 70,598+x
Gains a minor part of Withdean (10,568) ward. The Regency ward would have fit in whole, but, well, the nomenclatural problem with that should be obvious. And it doesn't stop there - I needed to remove as little from Kemptown as possible in order not to force it to expand out all the way to Lewes town (or split Seaford). Which would also have obvious knock-on effects further east.
Brighton Pavilion 72,234-x+x
Loses a minor part of Withdean, gains a minor part of Moulsecoomb & Bevendean (11,412)
Brighton Kemptown 75,634-x (or 74,015-x)
Gains the Newhaven wards and probably Kingston ward, loses a minor part of Moulsecoomb & Bevendean. If the split-off ward bits are kept to a bare minimum the transfer of Kingston can be avoided, which would be a good thing. (It's quite rural and obviously looks to Lewes.) But that depends on how reasonable the ward splits within Brighton can be - it comes down to a question of "what's the price and is it worth paying", and I cant answer the second part without being able to answer the first part first.

Crawley 75,726
Gains Copthorne & Worth ward
Horsham 72,522
Loses said ward
Mid Sussex 73,836 (or 75,954)
For purely cosmetic reasons, loses the Bolney ward. (Bracketed figure is unchanged.)
Arundel & South Downs 75,025 (or 72,907)
Loses Barnham at the southwest corner, gains Plaistow in the northwest and, for purely cosmetic reasons, Bolney in the northeast.
Chichester 77,450
Loses Plaistow
Bognor Regis & Littlehampton 76,976
Gains Barnham
Worthing West 73,784
Worthing East & Shoreham 72,524
unchanged

[minionofmidas]

My magnum opus... Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Essex.

Bedford 75,189
Gains Wilshamstead and Eastcotts wards
North East Bedfordshire 78,322
Loses Eastcotts wards in Bedford, gains the parishes of Old Warden, Southill and Clifton included in NE Beds dominated wards in the interim ward map.
Mid Bedfordshire 75,528
Loses these and Wilshamstead, gains Chalgrave, Hockliffe and Eggington parishes now similarly included in a Mid Beds dominated ward, and also (sigh) Plantation ward.
South Bedfordshire 73,684
Compared to current SW: Loses these areas, gains the part of SE Bedfordshire Ward currently in Luton S (all but Kensworth)
Luton North West 77,174
Compared to North, gains Biscot and Dallow but loses Barnfield.
Luton South East & Hitchin 76,232
Remainder of city; Hitchin part of current Hitchin & Harpenden constituency except Ermine, "Hitchwood, Offa & Hoo", and Knebworth wards. 36% of electorate in Hertfordshire.

Stevenage 77,654
Gains the latter two
North East Hertfordshire 72,089
Gains Ermine, loses Hertford Rural South
Hertford & Hatfield 78,202
Compared to Hertford & Stortford, loses Stortford town, gains Hertford Rural South ward and Welham Green and all the Hatfield wards of Welwyn Hatfield
Broxbourne 75,765
Gains Brookmans Park & Little Heath ward
Welwyn & Harpenden 76,735
Remainder of Welwyn Hatfield and Hitchin & Harpenden constituencies
Hemel Hempstead 72,682
unchanged
South West Hertfordshire 75,634
loses Hayling ward
Watford 74,931
In the north, loses Abbots Langley. In the south, gains Hayling but loses Carpenders Park. Only current constituency in the whole area to be oversized, btw.
Saint Albans 73,481
Gains Abbots Langley
Hertsmere 73,285
Gains Carpenders Park.

Stortford & Walden 78,089
Compared to current Saffron Walden, gains all of Stortford town in Hertfordshire (35% of new constituency), loses parts in Chelmsford district and Thaxted, Stebbing, and Felsted wards along the eastern edge
Braintree 77,168
Gains said three wards
Witham 76,310
In Chelmsford district, gains Saffron Walden portion and Little Baddow, Danbury & Sandon ward from Maldon. In Colchester district, loses everything but Tiptree. No change to Braintree and Maldon district portions.
Chelmsford 77,607
Colchester 73,501
unchanged
Essex North 76,055
A donut around Colchester, as existed until 2010; compared to current Harwich & Essex N it loses the six coastal wards in and around Harwich but gains four wards from Witham and (to make up the numbers) the St Osyth & Point Clear and Little Clacton & Weeley wards from Clacton
Harwich & Clacton 76,270
Should be self-evident. A very similar seat used to be named Harwich, but now that Clacton (which is larger) has been elevated to constituency name status I see no turning back.
Harlow 75,783
Gains Moreton & Fyfield, High Ongar etc, Shelley, and Chipping Ongar etc. Do I have to rename it Harlow & Ongar? I don't think I do.
Epping Forest 78,848
Gains the other three Epping Forest District wards currently in Brentwood & Ongar, ie Lambourne, North Weald Bassett, and Passingford
Brentwood & Billericay 78,297
Brentwood district, Billericay E and W wards of Basildon, and (had to be done. Worse horrors are yet to come, too) Orsett ward in Thurrock
Rayleigh & Wickford 77,142
More Wickford & Rayleigh actually, as this has travelled quite a bit. Gains the Crouch and Burstead wards in Basildon and the Saint Peter's, Cedar Hall, and Victoria wards in Castle Point; loses Hullbridge, Hockley, and points east.
Yeah. I finally found that I could draw a slightly less obnoxious map if I butchered Castle Point instead of the Basildon part of Basildon. I have no regrets about that, but I do have some regrets that I couldn't make it fit town lines. (Well, Canvey Island and Benfleet are still united - with each other, too - , but the smaller towns of Thundersley and Hadleigh are both split. This includes part of both. Mind you, it's all fairly continuously built up anyways; I guess only Canvey Island seriously has a separate identity.)
Thurrock 77,723
unchanged
Basildon 76,763
All of the borough south of the river, Saint George's ward in Castle Point
Canvey Island, Benfleet & Thurrock East 76,069
Remainder of Castle Point, remainder of Basildon S & Thurrock E. Stanford-le-Hope might be used instead of "Thurrock East".
Maldon & Hockley 76,177
Maldon constituency except for Little Baddow etc ward (see under Witham); Hullbridge and three Hockley wards.
Southend West 74,180
Gains Milton ward
Rochford & Southend East 77,999
Loses Milton; gains Ashingdon & Canewdon and the Hawkwell wards from Rayleigh & Wickford.

[minionofmidas]

Suffolk... just move three wards and you're set.

The Saints is moved from Waveney (77,227) to Suffolk Coastal (78,950). Bury St Edmunds (78,862) cedes Gislingham to Suffolk C & Ipswich N (78,204) and Rickinghall & Walsham to West Suffolk (77,815) and now doesn't border Norfolk anymore. No change to Ipswich (76,530) or Suffolk S (72,641). Despite that latter being the smallest in the county. Just didn't suggest itself.

[minionofmidas]

Cambridgeshire districts are very large, and some Norfolk constituencies are too small - guess which county narrowly gained a seat at the last review, and which narrowly didn't while posting the higher growth rates. This isn't actually abolishing a seat, just a giant trek westward.

Great Yarmouth 78,965
Gains Waxham, Waterside, Stalham & Sutton. Yeah, more than was needed, I know. Made a prettier map that way. Of course I don't see anything wrong with leaving it alone at just over 70k electors, but whatever Mr Cameron.
Norfolk North 72,597
Loses these three but gains the wards it just lost to the new "Broadland" seat introduced at the last review (southwestern portion of the district)
Norwich North 75,852
Regains Drayton N and S and Taverham N and S, also lost at the last review. Really an odd constituency (less than half is in Norwich actually), but I guess it's more the definition of the city limits and the shape of the conurbation that are odd.
Norwich South72,538
unchanged
Norfolk South 76,010
unchanged. Misnamed, strictly geographically speaking. But broadly based on district of same name. It wasn't really an issue before my proposals for a seat west of it that could otherwise bear the name. Oh yeah, moved one elector in response to a minor ward boundary alteration.
Norfolk Mid 78,280
Quite like the pre2010 seat of the same name (and unlike the current one): remainder of Broadland district; Two Rivers, Dereham town, Springvale & Scarning, Launditch and points north in Breckland
Breckland (for want of a better name, Norfolk S being taken. Though Thetford & Wymondham might do.) 78,292
Remaining portions of Norfolk S and Breckland districts
Norfolk North West 73,397
unchanged
Wisbech & Downham 73,553
This is the transcounty constituency. Parts of King's Lynn & West Norfolk district previously in Norfolk SW constituency (53%), Elm & Christchurch ward and all points north in NE Cambridgeshire, and the Peterborough wards of Eye & Thorney and Newborough to the northeast of the city which used to be in NE Cambs until the last review.
Peterborough 72,612
Drops these two, gains the three wards to the northwest of the city instead: Glinton & Wittering, Northborough, Barnack
Cambridgeshire North West 73,895
Loses these three and also Ramsey, gains Alconbury & The Stukeleys
Huntingdon 73,718
Loses Alconbury & The Stukeleys, Gransden & The Offords
Cambridgeshire North East (if that's still the right name. Kind of tempted to call it "Ely". ) 75,637
Loses Elm & Christchurch and points north, gains Ely town wards, Ramsey
Cambridgeshire South East 76,532
Loses Ely town and also Linton at the southern end; gains a string of four wards northwest of Cambridge: Girton, Cottenham, Longstanton, Swavesey
Cambridgeshire South 73,274
Gains Linton, Gransden & The Offords, loses aforementioned string of four. Still contains that one random Cambridge ward. Can't be helped.
Cambridge 75,612
Unchanged

[YL]

Cambridgeshire North East (if that's still the right name. Kind of tempted to call it "Ely". ) 75,637
Loses Elm & Christchurch and points north, gains Ely town wards, Ramsey

I'd quite like to revive the old "Isle of Ely" name, which would make slightly more sense if Haddenham were in it too.  "Ely" is better than "Cambridgeshire North East", though.

[minionofmidas]

Cambridgeshire North East (if that's still the right name. Kind of tempted to call it "Ely". ) 75,637
Loses Elm & Christchurch and points north, gains Ely town wards, Ramsey

I'd quite like to revive the old "Isle of Ely" name, which would make slightly more sense if Haddenham were in it too.  "Ely" is better than "Cambridgeshire North East", though.

Hmmm... at the time I drew that, I would very much have liked to drop that ward even without knowing that it's historically in the Isle of Ely, just on account of what looked nice. But as it stood then - and also as it stands now - that reduced my SE to below quota.

However, the issue can be addressed with a series of five transfers:

Cambridgeshire North West 77,883
Loses these three [to Peterborough] and also Ramsey, gains Alconbury & The Stukeleys
Huntingdon 73,855
Loses Alconbury & The Stukeleys Fenstanton, Gransden & The Offords
Isle of Ely 73,638
Loses Elm & Christchurch and points north, gains Ely town wards, Ramsey Haddenham
Cambridgeshire South East 75,586
Loses Ely town and also Linton at the southern end Haddenham; gains a string of four wards northwest of Cambridge: Girton, Cottenham, Longstanton, Swavesey
Cambridgeshire South 74,454
Gains Linton Fenstanton, Gransden & The Offords, loses aforementioned string of four. Still contains that one random Cambridge ward. Can't be helped.

Better, I think. Unless you now go spoil my fun and teach me that Ramsey is historical Isle of Ely too and a big reason why you suggested it. That would be not cool if that were the case. (Yes, yes, I know Wisbech is Isle of Ely.)

[minionofmidas]

Incidentally... here's an overview of where in England seats are being cut:
10 in Southern England: West London, North Central London, South Central London, South East London, Kent, Southern Essex, Northern Essex/Hertfordshire/Luton, Wiltshire/South Gloucestershire, Hampshire/Dorset, Devon/Cornwall
8 in the Midlands (more or less): Nottingham, Derbyshire, Warwickshire/Worcestershire, Birmingham/Walsall, Walsall/Wolverhampton, Dudley/"Sandwell", Staffordshire, Shropshire/Rural Cheshire
12 Up North: Wirral, Liverpool/Sefton, Stockport/Tameside, Bolton/Bury/South East Lancashire, Northern Lancashire, Cumbria, Sheffield/Barnsley, Leeds/Bradford, Humberside, Teesside/Southern Durham, Northern Durham (traditionally defined), Northumberland (traditionally defined)

Of course several of these seats (in Essex, Hampshire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, and Northern Lancashire) had been gained at the last review... and Devon and Cornwall, Wiltshire and Bristol/South Gloucestershire had gained a seat each at the last review and are giving up one of the two now. Since Norfolk and Northamptonshire were forced to share the wealth with places that missed out, none of the eleven seat gains of the last review wholly held.

[minionofmidas]

North Somerset... no changes to N Somerset (77,150) or Weston-super-Mare (78,516).

Bristol... no changes to S (78,148) or NW (73,104). W is only just barely not oversized and E is undersized by a healthy margin, but only one ward in W is small enough to not push W below target, and it's not anywhere near E. So we'll be splitting the Easton ward (8232) between W (71,401+x) and E (68,999+x).

Gloucestershire County Council... Gloucester is oversized and Forest of Dean is undersized. They are very different constituencies but they border each other. And the Westgate ward in Gloucester is situated on two islands in the Severn, actually. (Though east of the main floodway. Forest of Dean constituency is identical to Gloucestershire west of the Severn as of now) and makes more sense to remove than the one random Gloucester ward currently in Tewkesbury. Which will however have to remain there. Being larger than Westgate and all. All the other constituencies are fine as they are:
Forest of Dean 72,852
Gloucester 75,959
Tewkesbury 76,406
Cheltenham 78,469
The Cotswolds 77,138
Stroud 78,261

Swindon: Quite apart but on target at 78,583 N and 72,803 S. To be perfectly honest I didn't even glance at the map.

[minionofmidas]

Wiltshire and South Gloucestershire. All eight constituencies are currently below target.

Besides, both have new ward maps. South Gloucestershire's 2006 rewarding managed to respect the current constituency boundaries. Wiltshire is one of these large new unitaries, but it's already got new commission-drawn wards. (Hate those huge badly programmed pdf's the LGBCE is doing for the past two years. Even though the level of detail is nice, or would be if it were better done.)

[minionofmidas]

Okay, I've got a map now. The cross-unitary seat is phenomenally ugly, and I may think it over again, but for now I'm presenting it. Additional constraints due to seats being two percent over on average.

Kingswood 77,826
Gains Staple Hill and Downend but loses Siston
Filton & Thornbury 78,452
Compared to Filton & Bradley Stoke, loses Staple Hill, Downend, gains Severn, Thornbury N, S, Charfield, Frampton Cotterell
Melksham & Yate 79,434
At first I had united the far north of Wiltshire with eastern S Gloucestershire, but that just didn't work out - was too large with Wootton Bassett and too small without. So this now has the remaining areas of South Gloucestershire, and the following strip of Wiltshire (north to south): Malmesbury, Sherston, By Brook, Box & Colerne, Holt & Staverton, Meksham (incl. Melksham Without) wards. Doing it with Corsham instead of Malmesbury/Sherston is also too large. I didn't try Corsham instead of Melksham because that didn't fit the map I'd already drawn elsewhere... will try that in a minute.
Chippenham (or Wiltshire North?) 73,716
Chippenham wards, Corsham (incl. Without) wards, Kington, Calne Rural, Lyneham, Wootton Bassett wards, Purton, Brinkworth, Minety, Cricklade & Latton
Wiltshire South West 79,099
Summerham & Seend, Ethandune, Warminster wards, Mere, and points west (consisting mostly of Westbury, Trowbridge, and Bradford-on-Avon). This is a fairly marginally redrawn (expanded and shifted slightly northward) version of the old seat. Might be West rather than SW. Might, of course, also go back to its fantastically undescriptive old name of Westbury.
Salisbury 78,087
Till & Wylye Valley, Bulford, Allington & Figheldean, and remaining points south. This is expanded to include all wards it currently includes parts of - though in most of the split ward cases the larger part used to be elsewhere - and Tisbury ward.
Devizes 76,534
Remainder. Has some southern and western corners chopped off but gains Calne.


The alternate version has the Corsham wards moved from Chippenham to Melksham and Yate, the Calne wards moved from Devizes to Chippenham, and the Melksham wards to Devizes. For logical reasons, It followed that Summerham & Seend also should be in Devizes but Holt & Staverton might be in SW, leading to a new tally of 78,963 there. This left Devizes oversized and ? & Yate undersized, so we'd also have to move Marlborough and the donut West Selkley around it into Chippenham and Minety and Brinkworth into ? & Yate (76,668). This version of Chippenham is 77,773 and this version of Devizes is 75,107, so populations are better balanced, anyways. Though it's still just as ugly if not worse.

[doktorb]

Devizes, Devizes, Devizes.  Memories of Latin classes "devize, devizii, divesu...."

"Westbury" would nobody any favours, keep is Wiltshire South West

[minionofmidas]

Somerset with B&NES.

The five Somerset seats are too large, except for Wells which is barely on target. The Banes seats are much too small. The size and geographic position of Frome forced changes onto the Wells seat too (adding some thin appendage onto North Somerset's southeastern end down to Frome would have been just to effing weird. Besided, that would have meant adding the northern end of that constituency to Bath, instead of part of Bathavon. Bath & Frome would obviously have been far too large.)

Bath 73,938
gains Bathavon North, Bathavon South (but not West. That would have isolated Peasedown, and including that too would have made the seat too large.)
North Somerset 76,464
Loses these two, gains a triangular portion of rural Mendip district, which has been rewarded: Chewton Mendip & Ston Easton and Ashwick etc pp come from the Wells seat, Rode & Norton St Philip, Ammerdown, Coleford & Holcombe, Cranmore etc and Creech from the Somerton & Frome seat.
Wells 79,569
Loses two wards mentioned above, gains East and West Poldens from Bridgwater & West Somerset, the Pennards & Ditcheat from Somerton & Frome
Bridgwater & West Somerset 78,052
Loses these
Taunton 76,485
Loses North Curry & Stoke Saint Gregory, Ruishton & Creech. Has been rewarded, but compared to the atlas Ruishton & Creech is unchanged and the other is a merger of two wards by the names on the tin. The newly achieved exact identity with the district was cited at the review as the reason for the inane namechange. Hence, I'm undoing it now.
Yeovil 78,730
Loses South Peterton (it was the right population.)
Somerton & Frome 78,382
Gains the territory ceded by Taunton and Yeovil, loses the territory annexed by North Somerset and Wells.
The ward changes in Mendip affected the constituency boundary, and if the 2010 figures are to be trusted, they happened soon enough for the constituency boundary to be amended according. This means that the territory of the former Avalon ward, shown in Wells in the Atlas, is now in Somerton & Frome. It has now been divided, with the ward transferred to Wells including the northern part of it. (The ward of Butleigh & Baltonsborough now doesn't border the other Mendip parts in Somerton & Frome... still better than using that one instead of the Pennards from an overall mapshape view.)