Let the great boundary rejig commence
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2024, 12:07:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Let the great boundary rejig commence
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 41
Author Topic: Let the great boundary rejig commence  (Read 186376 times)
Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever
andrewteale
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 653
Romania


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #450 on: March 04, 2011, 10:32:39 AM »

Have done some preview work on the English review and put it on my rarely-updated blog:

http://ajrteale.blogspot.com/2011/03/so-parliamentary-voting-system-and.html
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #451 on: March 04, 2011, 10:49:38 AM »

According to your blog regional boundaries can't be crossed, is that correct?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #452 on: March 04, 2011, 01:28:11 PM »

According to your blog regional boundaries can't be crossed, is that correct?

They can be, but the Commission doesn't want to cross them and is consulting on not doing so, and allocating seats to the regions via Sainte-Laguë.  I can see why they're doing this, given that the whole of England would be a bit unwieldy and smaller divisions like counties (whichever definition of county you want) are too small to have a whole number of constituencies allocated under the Act, but personally I'd prefer that the current regional boundaries (particularly the one that perpetuates the ghost of "Humberside") be used for as few things as possible.

They also really, really, don't want to split wards.  I doubt they can avoid that in Sheffield, where most of the wards have electorates around 14,000.

See their newsletter issued today:
http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/docs/newsletter2-040311.pdf

The electorate figures to be used are also available now (at least for wards; where wards are to be split they'll use polling districts) on the Commission's website.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #453 on: March 04, 2011, 01:59:36 PM »

My Cumbrian proposals from earlier still seem to work; here they are with the new electorates:

1. Westmorland (77,474): from South Lakeland Ambleside and Grasmere, Arnside and Beetham, Burneside, Burton and Holme, Crooklands, all the Kendal wards, Lyth Valley, Milnthorpe, Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale, both Staveleys, Whinfell, the Windermere wards; from Eden Alston Moor, the Appleby wards, Askham, Brough, Crosby Ravensworth, Eamont, Hartside, Kirkby Stephen, Kirkby Thore, Long Marton, Morland, Orton with Tebay, Ravenstonedale, Shap, Ullswater, Warcop.

2. Barrow and Furness (78,312): the rest of South Lakeland; all of Barrow district.

3. Whitehaven and Workington (79,500): all of Copeland; from Allerdale Clifton, Harrington, Moorclose, Moss Bay, St. John's, St. Michaels, Seaton, Stainburn.  [On reflection, I still prefer this name.  People have actually heard of those places, unlike "Copeland".]

4. Penrith and Maryport (77,800): rest of Allerdale; rest of Eden; from Carlisle Burgh, Dalston.

5. Carlisle and the Border (77,284): rest of Carlisle.

However, there's actually no need to put the historically Lancashire ward of Staveley-in-Cartmel in the Westmorland seat on the new figures: it could go into Barrow and Furness.  Making this change takes Westmorland down to 75,912 and Barrow and Furness up to 79,874.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #454 on: March 04, 2011, 02:14:05 PM »

7.  Limavady & Mid Ulster (75,083).  Compared with current Mid Ulster, loses territory to seats 4 and 5 above; gains the whole of Limavady district and three southern wards of Coleraine district.  Anybody fancy naming this?

The Sperrins (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperrins).

I thought of that, but wasn't sure whether it was accurate enough.  However, it's quite a nice name, and the other one is horrible, so I'll adopt it for now.

Any comments on the rest of it?
Logged
ObserverIE
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,831
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #455 on: March 04, 2011, 03:32:49 PM »

7.  Limavady & Mid Ulster (75,083).  Compared with current Mid Ulster, loses territory to seats 4 and 5 above; gains the whole of Limavady district and three southern wards of Coleraine district.  Anybody fancy naming this?

The Sperrins (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperrins).

I thought of that, but wasn't sure whether it was accurate enough.  However, it's quite a nice name, and the other one is horrible, so I'll adopt it for now.

Any comments on the rest of it?

It's not ideal in that it spreads beyond the Sperrins themselves, but it's the only name you could really give to it, barring perhaps "Limavady, Magherafelt and Cookstown". Anything involving "Londonderry" isn't really appropriate, given that it will be a strongly nationalist/republican seat once Coleraine and its environs are out of the picture, and using "Derry" will cause palpitations on the other side.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #456 on: March 05, 2011, 06:50:42 PM »

There's a Wiki page  for this........ Wink


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #457 on: March 06, 2011, 10:19:50 AM »

I can do Sheffield with only one split ward, though it's quite finely tuned and probably at least three of the city's current MPs wouldn't like the outcome very much.  If split wards are to be avoided altogether then I'm pretty sure it's not possible to stay within the city boundary: there just aren't enough wards with electorates significantly more than a fifth of the quota to make two five ward constituencies.

Heeley (79,790): Arbourthorne, Gleadless Valley, Nether Edge, Graves Park, Beauchief & Greenhill, Dore & Totley.  Similar in some respects to the pre-1974 marginal Heeley.  Nether Edge is a bit out of place.

Hallam (73,016): Ecclesall, Fulwood, Crookes, Broomhill, Central.  Uses the large electorate of Central ward to get a five ward grouping into the target range.

South-East (78,338): Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Richmond, Manor Castle, Woodhouse.

Hillsborough (c. 78,028): Walkley, Hillsborough, Stannington, Stocksbridge & Upper Don, West Ecclesfield, part of East Ecclesfield (Chapeltown).  Similar to the 1983-2010 Hillsborough.

Brightside (c. 77,340): Darnall, Burngreave, Shiregreen & Brightside, Firth Park, Southey, part of East Ecclesfield (Ecclesfield village and points south).

If you want to avoid split wards, instead of bits of Ecclesfield give Hillsborough Penistone (from Barnsley) and Brightside Brinsworth & Catcliffe (from Rotherham).  Then Ecclesfield has to be dealt with with the rest of South Yorkshire, and then there are lots more problems to deal with (especially when you get into West Yorkshire and the huge wards in Leeds).
Logged
simonk
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #458 on: March 06, 2011, 05:22:38 PM »

According to your blog regional boundaries can't be crossed, is that correct?

They can be, but the Commission doesn't want to cross them and is consulting on not doing so, and allocating seats to the regions via Sainte-Laguë.  I can see why they're doing this, given that the whole of England would be a bit unwieldy and smaller divisions like counties (whichever definition of county you want) are too small to have a whole number of constituencies allocated under the Act, but personally I'd prefer that the current regional boundaries (particularly the one that perpetuates the ghost of "Humberside") be used for as few things as possible.

Personally I'd like a mix and match approach to regions. Where the boundary actually makes sense administratively or socially, then it should be observed (as in London, and much of the north and Midlands); where it's entirely arbitrary (as in the area you refer to, and the Home Counties) then they should feel free to cross it if necessary.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,852


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #459 on: March 07, 2011, 07:31:37 AM »

Okay. An brief attempt at South Scotland

---

East Lothian 74,320 (East Lothian Council)

Midlothian and Tweeddale 77,563 (Midlothian Council. Tweeddale West and Tweeddale East wards of Scottish Borders Council)

Selkirk, Roxburgh and Berwick 73,395 (Scottish Borders Council less part lying within Midlothian and Tweedale)

Dumfriesshire and Annandale 78,918 (Dumfries and Galloway Council less Wards 1-5)

Ayrshire South and Galloway 78,488 (Dumfries and Galloway Wards 1-5 and South Ayrshire Wards 7,8 and East Ayrshire Wards 8, 9)

Ayrshire Central 78,187 (South Ayrshire Council Wards 1-6 and part of North Ayrshire Ward 1)

East Ayrshire 75,001 (East Ayrshire Council less Wards 8,9)

----

This arrangement is not intended to maximise Tory chances. However it happens to work out that way Tongue

In short East Lothian is left on it's own. Midlothian extends down into Tweedale and the rump of the Scottish Borders remains a seperate seat.

The Dumfriesshire seat created for Holyrood is extended with the addition of two wards to the west of the town (which helps Labour) The remainder of Galloway is joined with Ayrshire taking in Girvan, Cumnock and Doon Valley. East Ayrshire remains broadly similar to how it currently is. The remainder of South Ayrshire is grouped with a part of Irvine creating a compact seat not too dissimilar to the 1983-1997 Ayr seat.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,976
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #460 on: March 11, 2011, 01:23:09 PM »

When the Assembly elections are over, I'll try and see what I can manage for Dyfed (as was) but have to admit that the chances are very high that Ceredigion will have to cross a border in order to shape up. My own personal hopes are for a Ceredigion and the Preselis or a Ceredigion and Montgomeryshire West and fears are for a Ceredigion and Dinefwr.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #461 on: April 17, 2011, 02:42:20 AM »

I'm trying to keep this updated ----  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #462 on: June 21, 2011, 01:20:14 PM »

An organisation called Democratic Audit has produced a constituency map for the whole UK under the new rules:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/the-uks-new-political-map

(This was covered in the media a few weeks ago but they've only just completed putting the details up.)

Some are good, some are bad, some are hilariously awful (see "Firth of Tay").

NB the authors are known Labour supporters.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,698
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #463 on: June 21, 2011, 01:40:46 PM »

Overall I'd say better than some other attempts, but there are some constituencies which... um... yeah. Take the one I'd be living in; Gwynedd & Machynlleth. Which would stretch from Y Felinheli to just west of Newtown.

Though, with the new rules, I suppose we should resign ourselves to an unusually large crop of stupidly drawn constituencies. More, I suspect, than the 1983 map.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #464 on: June 21, 2011, 04:07:22 PM »

Overall I'd say better than some other attempts, but there are some constituencies which... um... yeah. Take the one I'd be living in; Gwynedd & Machynlleth. Which would stretch from Y Felinheli to just west of Newtown.

Out of interest, what would be a better plan there (within the rules)?  Conwy Valley around Llanrwst and Betws-y-Coed instead of the Powys bit (if that works)?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,698
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #465 on: June 21, 2011, 06:28:49 PM »

Overall I'd say better than some other attempts, but there are some constituencies which... um... yeah. Take the one I'd be living in; Gwynedd & Machynlleth. Which would stretch from Y Felinheli to just west of Newtown.

Out of interest, what would be a better plan there (within the rules)?  Conwy Valley around Llanrwst and Betws-y-Coed instead of the Powys bit (if that works)?

I've not checked the figures yet (keep meaning to, but, you know) but I suspect the best solution might be to go for a further (and more drastic) split of Meirionnydd.
Logged
freefair
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 759
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #466 on: June 22, 2011, 11:42:51 AM »
« Edited: June 22, 2011, 11:49:24 AM by freefair »

I'd agree with splitting Meirionnydd, the southern half below the Mawddach  seems much more culturally and logistically in tune with West Montgomeryshire and Northern Ceredigion.
A "Cambrian Coast" , or "Aberdyfi" seat (a fitting geographical description and the name of the area's premier seaside resort) could be one idea.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #467 on: June 24, 2011, 03:30:43 PM »

Overall I'd say better than some other attempts, but there are some constituencies which... um... yeah. Take the one I'd be living in; Gwynedd & Machynlleth. Which would stretch from Y Felinheli to just west of Newtown.

Out of interest, what would be a better plan there (within the rules)?  Conwy Valley around Llanrwst and Betws-y-Coed instead of the Powys bit (if that works)?

I've not checked the figures yet (keep meaning to, but, you know) but I suspect the best solution might be to go for a further (and more drastic) split of Meirionnydd.

The Anglesey and Gwynedd council areas have just over 10,000 too few electors between them for two constituencies.  Presumably two constituencies will be formed which are based in those areas, so between them they have to collect some electorate from neighbouring areas.  Democratic Audit use parts of Conwy to boost the Anglesey/Bangor seat, and parts of Powys to boost the Caernarfon/Llŷn/Meirionnydd one.  So are you basically suggesting that part of Meirionnydd is left out of the latter (meaning it doesn't spread so far south) and where would it extend to instead?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,698
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #468 on: June 24, 2011, 05:46:27 PM »

The Anglesey and Gwynedd council areas have just over 10,000 too few electors between them for two constituencies.  Presumably two constituencies will be formed which are based in those areas, so between them they have to collect some electorate from neighbouring areas.  Democratic Audit use parts of Conwy to boost the Anglesey/Bangor seat, and parts of Powys to boost the Caernarfon/Llŷn/Meirionnydd one.  So are you basically suggesting that part of Meirionnydd is left out of the latter (meaning it doesn't spread so far south) and where would it extend to instead?

I've no idea because I've not looked over the figures (I should do though. Have you a link?). Maybe my idea doesn't fit in with the new rules of idiocy; I mostly thought of it because it's been proposed in the past (at least for local government boundaries). You could actually split Meirionnydd in three if necessary; Bala could rejoin Corwen with wherever that area ends up, the north of the county could go in an enlarged version of the old Caernarfon seat and the south in whatever Mid Wales monstrosity is required by the rules. But that's really just idle speculation.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,545
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #469 on: June 25, 2011, 01:51:24 AM »

I've no idea because I've not looked over the figures (I should do though. Have you a link?).

http://www.bcomm-wales.gov.uk/2013_review_e.htm
has a link to an Excel file with the relevant electorates.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #470 on: September 12, 2011, 05:39:49 AM »

The Boundary Commission for England are:


1) Giving MPs and party machines an embargoed preview of their proposals today
2) Announcing the proposals on their website tomorrow


The Boundary Commission for Scotland are:

1) Announcing their proposals on 13 October.


The Boundary Commission for Wales are:

1) Waiting until January 2012

The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland are:

1) Apparantly not bothering with updating us about anything.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #471 on: September 12, 2011, 06:26:42 AM »

The Boundary Commission of Northern Ireland have always been like that. After all, it's only British elections. Who, in NI, cares?
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #472 on: September 12, 2011, 07:15:31 AM »

MPs have been queing up like students on exam day waiting for their results

Some leaks are coming out from this (as they would)

Gloucester city centre moved into Forest of Dean

And this from journalist Paul Waugh

"paulwaugh
Paul Waugh

Sounds like Vince Cable's Twickenham seat being merged with Zac's Richmond Park: cd spell end of St Vince
43 seconds ago • reply • retweet • favourite
"
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #473 on: September 12, 2011, 07:18:33 AM »

MPs have been queing up like students on exam day waiting for their results

Some leaks are coming out from this (as they would)

Gloucester city centre moved into Forest of Dean

Lolwut? Lolwhy?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,698
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #474 on: September 12, 2011, 07:23:47 AM »

MPs have been queing up like students on exam day waiting for their results

Some leaks are coming out from this (as they would)

Gloucester city centre moved into Forest of Dean

Lolwut? Lolwhy?

A twisted tribute to Pennies From Heaven?

But, yeah. This boundary review is going to be beyond terrible. I look forward to pathetic squawking from people who supported the whole stupid process right up until the point they saw the new boundaries for their area.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 41  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.