Let the great boundary rejig commence

[minionofmidas]

Working between 72k and 79k (ish) certainly makes my Lancashire problem seem a little easier now, LOL. Things are looking up!

Can't help but wonder about split wards. Doesn't seem to say anything about that in the new legislation, does it?

IIRC it's not banned right now either; Commissions just have chosen not to due to practical considerations. As long as they had sufficient leeway, they had no reason to.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, the current regulations say wards are building blocks and they favour keeping them as whole units. I don't have the figures to hand, but I do look at Birmingham (as one extreme example) and wonder how they are going to divide such huge wards into 72-79k seats!

They'll either split wards on a massive basis (and to all sort of unbearable sh!t elsewhere, too) or have that 5% changed to 10%. There is no third option really.

[minionofmidas]

2010 electoral figures, from the Boundary Commision themselves, has the West Midlands at 1,921,952. So dividing by the new quota has an entitlement of 25.335, down from 26.867.  A loss of 2 seats then?

Three, as the region was currently overrepresented at 28 seats... although it's possible that you'll have to breach the boundary someplace.

[minionofmidas]

Quotas all over England...

London 68.37 (but if I count right I created 69 seats. Uh oh. This may become a problem given the fixed target.)
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
Milton Keynes 2.23. Those rural areas north of MK proper will have to be dropped.
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.
Northamptonshire 6.62. This has to be paired somehow. The combination of maths and maps suggests Milton Keynes... no one's going to like it, I think, though of course it won't actually hurt anybody. (Listing it here rather than with the Midlands because the places to the north have no problems, see below.)

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.

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.
Shropshire 3.04 + Telford 1.58. This is impossible (Herefordshire doesn't help. Cheshire is the only alternative. Or Powys except the law rules that out. See below.)
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.

Leicestershire 6.64 + Leicester 2.84 + Rutland .38. Super. A Leicester seat has to expand into the suburbs which is no biggie.
Lincolnshire 7.02
Derbyshire 7.87 + Derby 2.28
Nottinghamshire 7.82 + Nottingham 2.46. God, no.
NE Lincolnshire 1.52, N Lincolnshire 1.64 (just too large for three seats together, so the Isle of Axholme will be in an East Riding constituency), East Riding 3.50, Hull 2.38, so one seat really expanding out of town. Which frankly ought to have happened before (as also at Nottingham).
South Yorkshire 12.69 : Barnsley 2.32, Doncaster 2.88, Rotherham 2.51. You know what that means? It means pairing with Nottinghamshire. Oh, and Sheffield 4.99, as pointed out before.
West Yorkshire 20.60 : Kirklees 3.97 and Calderdale 1.95 are fine, but Bradford 4.24, Leeds 7.14, Wakefield 3.30... grouping them together for 15 undersized seats is going to mess with our England total.
York 1.96, North Yorkshire 6.04

Cheshire East 3.81, Cheshire West 3.32, Halton 1.21. It means taking the Wirral' surplus here and grouping with Shropshire.
Warrington 1.98
Merseyside 13.37 : Wirral 3.17, Liverpool 4.18, Knowsley 1.47, Saint Helens 4.18, Sefton 2.74. Greater Manchester 25.52 : Wigan 3.09, Bolton 2.59, Bury 1.87, Salford 2.15, Trafford 2.17, Manchester 4.43, Stockport 2.88, Tameside 2.17, Oldham 2.11, Rochdale 2.06
Lancashire 11.74 + Blackburn 1.34 + Blackpool 1.47 = 14.55
The huge obvious problems here are already being pondered by others, so I'll leave it for now.
Cumbria 5.15. Gonna be a bitch standing alone, but probably better than all the alternatives all things considered. (No seat can be more than 1500 above the county average.)
Cleveland 1.39, Middlesbrough 1.33, Stockton 1.86, Hartlepool 0.91, Darlington 1.05, County Durham 5.16. That's 11.70 all together. Cough.
Tyne & Wear 10.85: Sunderland 2.81, South Tyneside 1.52, Gateshead 1.94, Newcastle 2.54, North Tyneside 2.04
Northumberland 3.23

Counted it... twice... and (provided that West Midlands seats are a little oversized and that Lancs, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside sans Wirral are combined for 50) it works out to 503. Not actually sure why; seems to me the biggest roundings are all up?

[minionofmidas]

(3) The second and subsequent constituencies shall be allocated in the
same way, except that the electorate of a part of the United Kingdom
to which one or more constituencies have already been allocated is to
be divided by—
where C is the number of constituencies already allocated to that
part.

— being C+1? That would be D'Hondt. — being C+0.5 would be Sainte-Lague except for an irregularity with the first seat that wouldn't have any practical effect.

[minionofmidas]

(3) The second and subsequent constituencies shall be allocated in the
same way, except that the electorate of a part of the United Kingdom
to which one or more constituencies have already been allocated is to
be divided by—
where C is the number of constituencies already allocated to that
part.

— being C+1? That would be D'Hondt. — being C+0.5 would be Sainte-Lague except for an irregularity with the first seat that wouldn't have any practical effect.

Yeah, the equation is an image so it didn't copy over.

This sort of upsets all our maths, doesn't it?

Not necessarily. This is only for the four Nations, is it?

[minionofmidas]

calculated it, and even in that case it does: England gets a 504th seat, Wales is just 29.

[minionofmidas]

North Ayrshire/Inverclyde/Renfrewshire - 4 seats (3.

Interesting combination again. Paisley would be one seat (larger than the proposed Holyrood seat) taking in Renfrew. Greenock and Inverclyde can stretch along the Firth of Clyde towards Kilmalcolm/Erskine to form a second seat. The third seat is centred around Irvine and the surrounding area to the north (with or without Arran; depends if it takes in Troon and the ferry connection). The remainder of North Ayrshire and rural Renfrewshire makes the fourth seat.

3.8? Is that 3.80 or 3.84 or 3.79 or what? Because, you know, 5% deviation means 5% deviation means 3.80 is the absolute theoretical minimum that'll force you to slice right through addresses, American style, to build four seats out of.

[minionofmidas]

Counted it... twice... and (provided that West Midlands seats are a little oversized and that Lancs, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside sans Wirral are combined for 50) it works out to 503. Not actually sure why; seems to me the biggest roundings are all up?

Summed, all these quotas quoted make 502.48. Although from the England total it's 502.61, so I probably have an error in there somewhere - still explains why it's fine that I rounded up more.

[minionofmidas]

By grouping the southern Tyne & Wear boroughs with Rump Durham and Teesside, I can draw the undersized seats in old Northumberland instead, and avoid the Tyne Bridge retread.


The ward electorate figures given on the Boundary Commission site for the new unitary authority of Northumberland are for the current interim wards. The map in the Boundary Commission's final report on the 2010 se of boundaries shows the abolished wards of the old district councils. The map to be found on the Local Boundary Committee's page (a very badly formatted pdf) is shows the new wards that will replace the interim wards in 2013. There are no maps on the Council's own website, of course. And the Local Committee's draft report for most areas is just "we followed the council's submission" - though they take a whole paragraph to say that, of course (or alternatively don't mention an area at all). That submission in turn is too amateurishly written to answer all my questions in itself, but together with some long hard staring at both maps it did.

So, yeah. You will need this map to understand exactly what I'm saying. That's the post 2013 map.

My attempts to remove territory from North Tyneside haven't worked well, and in the end I've created hilariously finely balanced undersized constituencies (with multiply cut wards... but a logic to them!) elsewhere and just left

North Tyneside 78,389
As currently
Tynemouth 76,445
As currently

Part of the reason for that is that
Blyth Valley & Bedlington 75,372
Current Blyth Valley constituency and the three Bedlington wards
sums so very well.
Wansbeck & Amble 71,745+x
is where my comprehension problems were at, as the whole country around Morpeth and between Morpeth, Amble and Ashington is being extensively redrawn. The territory added is the current wards of Amble, Amble West with Warksworth, Chevington with Longhorsley, Lynemouth, Shilbottle, and the portion of the current ward of Ulgham not included in Wansbeck already. Add the old ward of Pegswood, which was already in Wansbeck, and this is identical to the proposed wards of Amble, Amble West with Warksworth (unchanged), Druridge Bay, Lynemouth, Pegswood, Shilbottle (unchanged), and four parishes of Longhorsley ward (the two by Morpeth and the two at the northeastern corner). To bring us across 72,069, the constituency will also include part of those 1410 residents of the current Ponteland North ward to be currently in Berwick constituency. These 1410 people live in seven parishes, of which four are proposed in the new Longhorsley, while two will remain in Ponteland North. I reasonably hope that the four northern parishes will do the trick, 'cause I need the southern ones elsewhere. Note that the proposed Longhorsley ward is still divided - the three northwesternmost parishes (Elsdon, Rothley and Nunnykirk) are currently in Rothbury ward, and have been left with it in the rural remnant
Berwick & Hexham 72,037+x
Yeah, I had the rest of that 1410 planned here before fully understanding which villages they were. Now they don't look quite so good but I'm using them anyways. That 72,037 figure is everywhere in Northumberland except the areas listed above, the two Prudhoe wards, Bywell, and the four Ponteland wards. That x is those two villages, Capheaton and Belbay, so the proposed Ponteland North will also be divided.
Newcastle West, Ponteland & Prudhoe 69,970+x
is the threatened rurban constituency. In Northumberland, it includes the two Prudhoe wards, Bywell, and the four Ponteland wards except the area currently in Berwick constituency. Within Newcastle, it includes the current Newcastle North constituency except Fawdon, East Gosforth, and part of Parklands (hence why I changed it to West).
Newcastle Central 67,691+x
is the current constituency, Fawdon, and part of Parklands; and
Newcastle East 71,837+x
is the current constituency, East Gosforth, and part of Parklands.
Of the 7549 inhabitants of Parklands, at least 232 have to go into East, at least 4378 into Central, and at least 2099 into North, leaving just 840 people of leeway to not have to split polling divisions. That figure might be increased (and the North figure decreased) by an unknown quantity if Belbay is included in the rurban rather than the rural remainder seat.
Ponteland and Prudhoe are really the only "suburban" bits to the northwest of Newcastle to be included in Northumberland that can't really complain about being drawn into Newkie... but that's referring to Ponteland the parish; Ponteland the wards cover a much larger and mostly (by surface, anyhow) rural area.

Is anybody still with me?

[minionofmidas]

(3) The second and subsequent constituencies shall be allocated in the
same way, except that the electorate of a part of the United Kingdom
to which one or more constituencies have already been allocated is to
be divided by—
where C is the number of constituencies already allocated to that
part.

— being C+1? That would be D'Hondt. — being C+0.5 would be Sainte-Lague except for an irregularity with the first seat that wouldn't have any practical effect.

Yeah, the equation is an image so it didn't copy over.

This sort of upsets all our maths, doesn't it?

The missing equation is 2C+1 as shown in the .pdf, not C+1.  The maths are Ste-Lague and as I posted.

Yes, that is Ste Lague.

Incidentally, why would they write the "not for the first seat" part? That formula works for the first seat too.

[minionofmidas]

Blaydon 74,136 or 74,977
Current constituency plus either Dunston & Teams or Chowdene
Gateshead 72,924 or 72,083
Current constituency plus the two eastern wards currently in Jarrow minus either Dunston & Teams or Chowdene.
I *think* I prefer the Dunston & Teams transfer since although it's deeper into Gateshead, at least the boundary in that area is running through continuously built-up territory anyways already, but I'd defer to those who know the area. There is also a third option of including both wards in Gateshead, which is then at the upper end of the allowable corridor, and adding bits of County Durham to the Blaydon seat.

Rough outline of things to come: South Shields, Sunderland N, Sunderland S, Jarrow & Washington (not sure how well that one will work out, exactly); Houghton to be included in a constituency mostly located in County Durham, four seats wholly in County Durham; Darlington either left alone or with one or two of the rural wards chopped off if that makes for better balance elsewhere, Hartlepool with very little rural territory added - just enough to get it across .95 of a seat; Redcar & East Cleveland, Middlesbrough N & Eston, Middlesbrough S & Thornaby (not sure how well that one will work out, exactly), Stockton Proper, and one seat of inevitable cruelty that's half in County Durham and half around Billington.

[minionofmidas]

Rough outline of things to come: South Shields, Sunderland N, Sunderland S, Jarrow & Washington (not sure how well that one will work out, exactly); Houghton to be included in a constituency mostly located in County Durham, four seats wholly in County Durham; Darlington either left alone or with one or two of the rural wards chopped off if that makes for better balance elsewhere, Hartlepool with very little rural territory added - just enough to get it across .95 of a seat; Redcar & East Cleveland, Middlesbrough N & Eston, Middlesbrough S & Thornaby (not sure how well that one will work out, exactly), Stockton Proper, and one seat of inevitable cruelty that's half in County Durham and half around Billington.

Progress Report:

I drew three different maps around Wearside, all passable but with obvious problem areas. Two of them left out only three of the four wards that I'd call the Houghton area, so I tentatively went with the third (even though that's the one with the split ward) because all the Houghton area plus the former Chester district is a nice constituency. Derwentside plus the empty bit of Weardale is a nice constituency. Bishop Auckland plus the rest of Weardale minus two little odds and ends in the former Sedgefield district that are now in Sedgefield-constituency dominated wards is a nice constituency. Randomly annexing Lower Spennymoor into City of Durham isn't all that pretty but it works. (Durham too is a new unitary with an interim warding arrangement that noone bothers to map, but I found the list that describes what old wards went into which interim wards. Who cares what the new wards the Local Boundary Commission is proposing are - unlike in Northumberland they're not even finalized yet.)
The former Easington district is a nice constituency, or alternatively Hartlepool plus the southernmost bits of the former Easington district - Blackhalls, Hutton Henry, no more - is a nice constituency. Can't have both, though, the combined area is too small for two seats.
I did draw reasonable Redcar & E Cleveland and Middlesbrough N & Eston seats, too, but that's where the troubles began - exactly where I expected them.
Middlesbrough S & Thornaby turned out more Middlesbrough S & Ingoldsby Barwick, and Stockton Proper included much of Thornaby, but that still leaves two wards over in the southwest corner of Stockton that are too large to go into either of that. Worse, instead the two underpopulated rural wards of Stockton would be needed to make a fine Stockton constituency - but that leaves Billingham locked off. And if Darlington constituency is to include the whole of the unitary, then so are those two southwestern Stockton wards. While if I tenuously connect them through the rural eastern part of Darlington UA, the population in the area left is too large for two seats.

So... back to the drawing board in Stockton. And possibly the population numbers issue will force me to use one of the other two maps on Wearside, too, forcing me back to the drawing room in Chester and Durham in ways that won't look anywhere as good as what I have now.

[minionofmidas]

Suggestions out of my conundrum?

[minionofmidas]

If by the other bits of Weardale you mean Crook and Willington, that would work nicely.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What areas would that be, approximately? All of Middlesbrough (within city limits, anyhow. Minus the furthermost southern extents. And actually plus much of the old Eston UD area) looks about equally central from broad overviews of street grid and population density...

[minionofmidas]

Washington & Jarrow (can this still be "Jarrow"? I guess Washington & Hebburn is more descriptive) 68,770+x
The Washington wards of Sunderland; Fellgate & Hedworth, Hebburn N, Hebburn S, Monkton and part of Primrose (6392) wards, South Tyneside
South Shields 69,921+x
Current constituency, Bede and part of Primrose wards
Sunderland North 72,185
City of Sunderland wards 2, 5, 9-11, 16, 20; Cleadon & East Boldon and Boldon Colliery wards, South Tyneside
Sunderland South 74,946
City of Sunderland wards 1, 4, 6, 12-15, 17, 19
Chester-le-Street & Houghton 78,898
Copt Hill, Hetton, Houghton and Shiney Row wards, Sunderland; former Chester-le-Street district, County Durham
Derwentside 76,382
Former Derwentside district and current interim Weardale ward, which is the former Wear Valley wards of Saint John's Chapel, Stanhope, and Wolsington & Witton-le-Wear (which makes for an odd-looking boundary just outside Tow Law - but is worth breaking an old-and-new ward boundary and having an imprecise population total just for the benefit of Witton residents? Maybe it'll get kinked out with the new recommendations, I didn't check.)
Bishop Auckland 75,414
Current constituency, minus the Spennymoor area in Sedgefield district northeast of Bishop Auckland, plus the Crook/Willington/Tow Law area up to the boundary described above, plus the former Greenfield Middridge ward (which is now half of Shildon East ward, the other half being in Bishop Auckland already.)
City of Durham & Spennymoor 74,888
Former constituency (and district) except for the Sherburn ward aka the former Pittington & West Rainton and Shadforth & Sherburn wards; most of the abovementioned Spennymoor area (excluding "Cornforth parish and the Merrington parish ward of Spennymoor parish" - these 909 electors are now in Chilton ward with areas to the south, and I've let them go there rather than split a ward.)
Easington 74,529
Former district except for the new Blackhalls ward, which is the former Blackhalls ward, the former Hutton Henry ward except Castle Eden parish (which rightfully is with a Peterlee ward now) and the southern one or two parishes of the former Wingate ward; and the Sherburn ward (see above). Yeah, I moved a couple of areas here since the status update to make up numbers.
Hartlepool 75,378
Hartlepool UA, Blackhalls ward
Darlington 79,460
UA
Billingham & Sedgefield aka Necessary Evil 78,824
The remaining parts of County Durham (the area that used to be in both Sedgefield district and Sedgefield constituency, except Greenfield Middridge, plus some land on the southern outskirts of Spennymoor), and the Billingham wards, the Northern and Western Parishes, and also the Hardwick ward of Stockton. 52% of the seat is in County Durham.
Stockton-on-Tees 78,698
The remaining areas north of the river and the Mandale & Victoria, Parkfield & Oxbridge, Eaglescliffe, and Yarm wards. Not nearly as pretty as I once had it, but unavoidable and - apart from Hardwick - not bad. I just couldn't accomodate those southern areas with all of Stockton proper in one constituency, and the seats east of here are also full already as will be seen in a sec. Certainly better than some snaky tentacle east of Darlington. Or than splitting Darlington, or even Hartlepool, as I contemplated for fleeting moments. Of course the undersized constituencies in South Tyneside partly force these seats' tallies up, too, but geography would have implied it anyways. It's part of the reason I tried the undersized seats in Northumberland instead.
Middlesbrough South & Ingleby 76,978
Ingleby Barwick E and W, Village, and Stainsby Hill wards of Stockton; Middlesbrough areas currently in Middlesbrough S & East Cleveland, Acklam, Beechwood, Brookfield and Kader wards
Middlesbrough North & Eston 77,637
Remainder of Middlesbrough; Eston, Grangetown, Normanby, Ormesby, South Bank, Teesville wards of Redcar & Cleveland
Redcar & East Cleveland 76,337
Remainder

[minionofmidas]

If you were to move Mandale and Victoria into Middlesbrough South, and Ingleby Barwick West into Stockton, would that take either seat out of tolerance?

No, that would make virtually no difference at all and look nicer on an overview map. (I think Stockton gains 12 people net, or was it lose); the reason I used the other one was I was figuring that the one way I was splitting only Thornaby while the other way I was splitting them both; but I suppose Parkfield & Oxbridge is not Thornaby?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I know, Eston the place is far smaller than Eston the former Urban District (which was very similar to the area described here, really just some warehousing land in Teesport missing), and I've no idea how well recognized that name still is. It's all continuously built up from Middlesbrough anyways. But was it ever in a Middlesbrough seat?
Only reason I used "East Cleveland" is because that's what the area is also called in the current Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland constituency name.

[minionofmidas]

Billingham and Sedgefield actually makes a fair bit of sense.  Sedgefield town is rather difficult to combine with anywhere else because (rather strangely) there are no north-south roads through it.

Sedgefield has about 5000 inhabitants, and I've never understood why it's a constituency name of such long standing. By far the largest place in the Durham part of the seat is actually Newton Aycliffe.

[minionofmidas]

Meanwhile, a little tinkering has seen my "logjam" slightly shifted. Now I need to look at southern and eastern Lancs. Remember, I am NOT inlcuding Merseyside, which I appriciate causes a few issues in the West Lancs/Sefton area, but there you go.

Merseyside sans Wirral is 10.20 seats; I'd wonder if some wards on the Sefton outskirts can maybe be shifted into the W Lancs seat, but IIRC Andrew proposed something where Southport and Crosby (or whatever it was called) both expanded well outwards.[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it happens. Something has got to give.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol.

[minionofmidas]

If you were to move Mandale and Victoria into Middlesbrough South, and Ingleby Barwick West into Stockton, would that take either seat out of tolerance?

No, that would make virtually no difference at all and look nicer on an overview map. (I think Stockton gains 12 people net, or was it lose); the reason I used the other one was I was figuring that the one way I was splitting only Thornaby while the other way I was splitting them both; but I suppose Parkfield & Oxbridge is not Thornaby?

Thornaby was in the North Riding; Parkfield and Oxbridge was the other side of the Tees from Thornaby and therefore in County Durham.

Are you telling me I can't read maps!?
Apparently you are. And apparently you're right. Oh well.
So yeah, Middlesbrough S & Thornaby it is.

[minionofmidas]

So what area should I try next?

[minionofmidas]

[shudder]  I would not like to give Yorkshire a go. I'll stick with Lancs. And I will remember to look out for any mountains in the borderlands

Just dynamite any obstructive hills away.

[minionofmidas]

Nottinghamshire 7.82 + Nottingham 2.46. God, no.
NE Lincolnshire 1.52, N Lincolnshire 1.64 (just too large for three seats together, so the Isle of Axholme will be in an East Riding constituency), East Riding 3.50, Hull 2.38, so one seat really expanding out of town. Which frankly ought to have happened before (as also at Nottingham).
South Yorkshire 12.69 : Barnsley 2.32, Doncaster 2.88, Rotherham 2.51. You know what that means? It means pairing with Nottinghamshire. Oh, and Sheffield 4.99, as pointed out before.
West Yorkshire 20.60 : Kirklees 3.97 and Calderdale 1.95 are fine, but Bradford 4.24, Leeds 7.14, Wakefield 3.30... grouping them together for 15 undersized seats is going to mess with our England total.
York 1.96, North Yorkshire 6.04

Hmmm... I'll get the easy parts out of the way first, give some preparative thought to the remainder.

Easy parts like York, that is:
York Central 74,013
No change
York Outer 74,797
No change

North Yorkshire will also retain its six seats, but of the current seats Richmond is too large, while Selby & Ainsty is barely legal and the others are somewhere in between. Preferrably I would have just transferred one or two Hambleton wards from Richmond to Thirsk & Malton but this was not as easy as it sounded because the area would have had to be right between 1659 and 2822 inhabitants, and Leeming ward (1880) is literally the only option, but that looks butt-ugly.
Looking whether I could get some wiggleroom by transferring territory out of Thirsk & Malton, I was stuck by the western boundary of that being a district boundary throughout, and by the unnatural position of Filey in it at the eastern end. However, Filey is far too large to just be added to Scarborough & Whitby; although a plausible solution would be to transfer those two southern wards from Thirsk & Malton to Scarborough & Whitby, move the three rural wards at the northwest end the other way, and then move two northeastern wards from Richmond to Thirsk & Malton. Not at all sure I prefer that; actually I probably don't.
Or you could at least make the butt-ugly bit look less ugly by moving the ward to Leeming's south, Tanfield (1434) into Skipton & Ripon. That works too (but means Skipton & Ripon includes one ward from another district.)

Just for the system's sake:
Richmond (Yorks) 79,434
As currently except without Leeming
Thirsk & Malton 78,713
As currently plus Leeming
Scarborough & Whitby 76,032
Skipton & Ripon 76,654
Harrogate & Knaresborough 74,560
Selby & Ainsty 72,532
all unchanged

Btw. You would drive through another constituency to get to Leeming from Thirsk, but you wouldn't drive far. I've never understood the obsession with road links, at least not in cases like this.

[minionofmidas]

I wish there was a program like Dave's Redistricting App for the UK so I could join in on the fun

Kids these days. Don't know what a pdf and a pocket calculator are for.

[minionofmidas]

In the former Humberside, as pointed out above the two North Lincolnshire UAs are too large to stand alone for three seats so I treated the Isle of Axholme with East Yorkshire and Hull (though removing the whole of the Isle meant that the North Lincolnshire seats would on average be smaller than the East Yorkshire seats). Also, wards are once again huge - both Beverley & Holderness and "East Yorkshire" are slightly above target as is with any whole ward removed taking them well below quota - and you can't remove a ward from East Yorkshire without splitting it in two anyways. Nor can you sensibly remove a whole ward from Beverley & Holderness.
Elsewhere though, the concept of basically splitting up Haltemprice & Howden, drawing the dense suburban parts into the currently undersized Hull seats, worked very well:
Beverley & Holderness 68,282+x
Loses the southwestern part of Beverley Rural ward (11,506)
East Yorkshire 68,319+x
Loses some southern parts of Wolds Weighton (12,194). Leaving that stupid name in is really just lazyness, and a sense that basically unchanged constituencies shouldn't be renamed.
Hull East 77,296
gains Myton
Hull North & Cottingham 78,176
gains Cottingham North and South
Hull West & Haltemprice 78,286
Hull West & Hessle, minus Myton, plus Tranby, Willerby & Kirk Ella, and South Hunsley
Howden, Goole & Axholme 69,695+x
The three Isle of Axholme wards in North Lincolnshire, and in East Yorkshire the Goole N, Goole S, and Snaith etc wards from the old Brigg & Goole, the Howden, Howdenshire, and Dale wards from the old Haltemprice & Howden, and parts of Beverley Rural and Wolds Weighton as described above.
Sc**nthorpe 75,398
Gains the wards of Burringham & Gunness and Burton upon Stather & Winterton. Bit odd boundary, but avoids a split ward.
Great Grimsby 69,991+x
While here a split ward couldn't be avoided, at least not without lopping off random parts of Grimsby (I didn't check all possible options, but I did check a few and found no solution). Current constituency plus Sidney Sussex and part of Croft Baker (8625) wards
whatever. Brigg & Immingham 68,174+x
Current constituency minus Sidney Sussex and part of Croft Baker; plus Brigg & Wolds and Broughton & Appleby.

The issue, of course, is that that splits Cleethorpes town right down the middle. There's a reason why Great Grimsby constituency isn't any larger than it is at current.
So... it's not cool, but... what if we split Grimsby down the middle instead of Cleethorpes? We can avoid the split ward that way.

Grimsby East & Cleethorpes 74,556
Sidney Sussex, Croft Baker, Haverstoe (ie Cleethorpes), Humberston & New Waltham, and in Grimsby East Marsh, Heneage, Park, Scartho and South wards
Grimsby West, Immingham & Brigg 72,234
West Marsh, Yarborough, and Freshney wards in Grimsby, and Waltham ward and points west of the Brigg & Immingham described above.