UK parliamentary boundary review
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:30:10 AM
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)
  UK parliamentary boundary review
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15
Author Topic: UK parliamentary boundary review  (Read 19795 times)
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2021, 02:02:01 PM »

Here's a Devon plan with 13 seats.  With an entitlement of only just over 12.5, they all have to be quite close to the lower limit, which makes this a bit awkward.



1. Honiton.  Replaces parts of East Devon and Tiverton & Honiton
2. Tiverton.  Effectively the successor to Tiverton & Honiton, but without the latter town.
3. Exeter.  (Number not on map)
4. Exmouth & Exeter East.  Effectively the new seat.
5. North Devon
6. Newton Abbot
7. Dartmoor.  The existing Central Devon shifted a bit south and west
8. Torbay
9. Totnes
10. Plymouth North & Yealm (or whatever you want to call it).  Basically the non-Plymouth parts of the current SW Devon plus some of Plymouth Moor View
11. Torridge & West Devon
12. Plymouth Sutton.  Includes Plympton and Plymstock
13. Plymouth Devonport

Seats 10, 12 and 13 could be re-jigged to get something closer to the current arrangement, but it would need a split ward in Plymouth.  Split wards are likely in some places; whether the case is strong enough to do it here I don't know.

Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2021, 02:12:19 PM »
« Edited: May 10, 2021, 02:28:39 PM by Southern Deputy Speaker Punxsutawney Phil »

Is it possible to engineer a Labour seat in Cornwall? I think Truro, Falmouth and Redruth are more amenable.
update: after some finagling I was able to make this:

this is a Cornwall Labourmander. Orange and red are probably winnable for Labour?
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2021, 03:00:16 PM »

Is it possible to engineer a Labour seat in Cornwall? I think Truro, Falmouth and Redruth are more amenable.
update: after some finagling I was able to make this:

this is a Cornwall Labourmander. Orange and red are probably winnable for Labour?


Red looks good. Though it might be tough to get a Labour Party to appeal to both - I think Truro is quite liberal and pro-EU whereas Redruth had strong UKIP support. In a way like the Red Wall/London distinction.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2021, 03:35:08 PM »

One take on Dorset makes fairly major changes to the existing seats in order to respect the boundary between the two new unitaries:



1. Christchurch & Southbourne
2. Bournemouth Central
3. Kinson & Broadstone (number not on map)
4. Poole

5. East Dorset
6. North Dorset
7. South Dorset
8. West Dorset

Or alternatively you could ignore the new unitaries and try to stay close to the current seats:



1. West Dorset
2. South Dorset
3. North Dorset
4. Mid Dorset & North Poole
5. Poole
6. Bournemouth West
7. Bournemouth East
8. Christchurch

The Bournemouth seats have shown some signs of a Labour trend, so there might be some interest in the details there.  I'm not sure what arrangement would best suit them, though.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2021, 04:00:15 PM »

One take on Somerset treats BANES separately.  This can actually be done without a split ward, but it requires carving parts out of Bath, so I've split Bathavon North.



1. North Somerset.
2. Weston Super Mare.
3. Cheddar.  New seat: southernmost North Somerset, the western side of the current Wells constituency and parts of the Bridgwater area.
4. Wells & Frome.  It's possible to stay a bit closer to the existing arrangements here, but this seems tidier.
5. Yeovil.
6. Somerton & Glastonbury.
7. Taunton.
8. Bridgwater & West Somerset.
9. Bath
10. North East Somerset.

Alternatively, and with no need of a split ward, a small area of either Somerset "proper" or North Somerset could be added to the North East Somerset seat.  In this plan I've also avoided the tight boundary around Bridgwater town in the previous one, but at the cost of a rather weird West Somerset seat stretching to Chard.



1. North Somerset
2. Weston Super Mare
3. Wells
4. Frome
5. Yeovil
6. Bridgwater.  Separated from West Somerset and taking on Highbridge and Burnham on Sea.
7. Taunton
8. West Somerset
9. Bath
10. North East Somerset

Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2021, 04:14:08 PM »

Gloucestershire and Bristol share a new seat.





1. Cheltenham
2. Gloucester
3. Tewkesbury.  Contains a bit more of Cheltenham than it does now.
4. Stroud.  Shifts a bit north, gaining Quedgeley (the south end of Gloucester), but keeps the whole greater Stroud area.
5. The Cotswolds
6. Forest of Dean
7. Tetbury & Thornbury.  Successor to Thornbury & Yate, but takes in territory in the Gloucestershire CC area.
8. Yate & Bradley Stoke.  Now without Filton.
9. Kingswood
10. Bristol Frenchay.  New seat: four wards of north-east Bristol, plus some largely urban wards of South Gloucestershire fringing the city from Filton round to Mangotsfield.  Other options are available.
11. Bristol North West
12. Bristol West.  The current seat is grossly oversized, and in this plan loses Easton, Lawrence Hill and Bishopston & Ashley Down.
13. Bristol East.  Or perhaps South East.
14. Bristol South
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2021, 03:52:51 AM »

Finally in the South West, Wiltshire.  7 seats here is a challenge, with the average electorate near the top of the range.  This is a solution I found which doesn't split a ward, but has a lot of change from the existing seats and one incoherent sprawling rural seat:



Swindon East (yellow)
Swindon West (blue)
Devizes (red; the sprawling rural seat)
Salisbury (green)
Trowbridge & Warminster (purple)
Chippenham (turquoise)
North Wiltshire (pink)

There might be a possibility to split a ward to stay closer to the current arrangements, or perhaps to put a ward or two in a neighbouring county's constituency.
Logged
Conservatopia
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,182
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 0.72, S: 8.60

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2021, 07:16:52 AM »

Gloucestershire and Bristol share a new seat.



1. Cheltenham
2. Gloucester
3. Tewkesbury.  Contains a bit more of Cheltenham than it does now.
4. Stroud.  Shifts a bit north, gaining Quedgeley (the south end of Gloucester), but keeps the whole greater Stroud area.
5. The Cotswolds
6. Forest of Dean
7. Tetbury & Thornbury.  Successor to Thornbury & Yate, but takes in territory in the Gloucestershire CC area.
8. Yate & Bradley Stoke.  Now without Filton.
9. Kingswood
10. Bristol Frenchay.  New seat: four wards of north-east Bristol, plus some largely urban wards of South Gloucestershire fringing the city from Filton round to Mangotsfield.  Other options are available.
11. Bristol North West
12. Bristol West.  The current seat is grossly oversized, and in this plan loses Easton, Lawrence Hill and Bishopston & Ashley Down.
13. Bristol East.  Or perhaps South East.
14. Bristol South

This is really good.  Looks like Jack would still be my MP if he stays at 8, without Filton he should be safer.  Luke Hall would be safe from an LD challenge this time too.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2021, 02:11:34 AM »

Is it possible to engineer a Labour seat in Cornwall? I think Truro, Falmouth and Redruth are more amenable.

It probably wouldn't be desirable. If Labour are in a position to form a government then Truro and Falmouth would be highly likely to fall and Camborne and Redruth would be marginal at worst, and there's not much point gerrymandering for a situation where you lack the ability to do something with your extra seats anyway.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2021, 05:03:54 AM »

For fun and to see just how badly I get piled upon, here is Wales. For the record I did not pay any attention to what the current constituencies look like though I did take a look at the primary authorities map.



North Wales inset



South Wales inset

Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2021, 05:17:51 AM »

For fun and to see just how badly I get piled upon, here is Wales. For the record I did not pay any attention to what the current constituencies look like though I did take a look at the primary authorities map.


Since you asked for a pile on...

Not the worst attempt but the Valleys are horrific, especially that pink seat with Maesteg and Aberdare. It's best to follow the topography there as much as you can. Additionally it's best to keep as much of the old counties/primary authorities together as much as you can e.g. Ceredigion. But assuming you don't know anything about Wales it could've been much worse. I could see US legislators drawing something like this, though.

Not a criticism of you or anything, just how I'd evaluate that map.

I've been working on a map for the Scottish Parliament myself but this isn't the thread for it.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2021, 06:18:05 AM »

Gloucestershire and Bristol share a new seat.



1. Cheltenham
2. Gloucester
3. Tewkesbury.  Contains a bit more of Cheltenham than it does now.
4. Stroud.  Shifts a bit north, gaining Quedgeley (the south end of Gloucester), but keeps the whole greater Stroud area.
5. The Cotswolds
6. Forest of Dean
7. Tetbury & Thornbury.  Successor to Thornbury & Yate, but takes in territory in the Gloucestershire CC area.
8. Yate & Bradley Stoke.  Now without Filton.
9. Kingswood
10. Bristol Frenchay.  New seat: four wards of north-east Bristol, plus some largely urban wards of South Gloucestershire fringing the city from Filton round to Mangotsfield.  Other options are available.
11. Bristol North West
12. Bristol West.  The current seat is grossly oversized, and in this plan loses Easton, Lawrence Hill and Bishopston & Ashley Down.
13. Bristol East.  Or perhaps South East.
14. Bristol South

This is really good.  Looks like Jack would still be my MP if he stays at 8, without Filton he should be safer.  Luke Hall would be safe from an LD challenge this time too.

Yes, I think the Tories wouldn't be too unhappy with this, as although the new seat would presumably be notionally Labour the currently Tory marginals would get a bit safer.  Labour might prefer a map which gives a chance of 6 Labour seats in greater Bristol in an even year.

I did have the alternative below which keeps Filton & BS closer to how it is now and adds more of the Kingswood area to the Bristol/S Glos seat.  But I haven't done any notional calculations, so I don't know how differently it would work out.

Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2021, 12:47:59 PM »

The mainland South East gets 89 seats, up 6.  (The Isle of Wight gets 2, so the region gets 91 in total.)

The entitlements of the counties and unitary authorities are

Kent (county council) 15.36
Medway 2.69
Kent total 18.05

East Sussex (county council) 5.65
Brighton & Hove 2.75
East Sussex total 8.40

West Sussex 8.81

Surrey 11.72

Hampshire (county council) 14.26
Southampton 2.19
Portsmouth 1.99
Hampshire total 18.44

West Berkshire 1.64
Reading 1.47
Wokingham 1.71
Bracknell Forest 1.18
Windsor & Maidenhead 1.47
Slough 1.20
Berkshire total 8.65

Buckinghamshire (unitary) 5.43
Milton Keynes 2.57
Buckinghamshire total 8.00

Oxfordshire 6.81

It's natural to give Kent 18 seats, Oxfordshire 7 and Buckinghamshire 8, an increase of one in every case.  In theory East Sussex could have 8 seats of its own with electorates all within about 20 of the upper limit, but I doubt anyone will try, so it gets combined with West Sussex for 17 seats, also up 1.

That leaves Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire.  All can in principle be done on their own, but the average sizes needed are far enough from the quota that it's not that easy.  In my opinion (but there has been considerable discussion of this in another place) Surrey turns out to work OK on its own, but Hampshire and Berkshire are harder, so I'd be minded to give Surrey 12 seats, up 1, and Hampshire and Berkshire 27 between them, again up 1.  In the latter group, Portsmouth can continue to be treated separately, and it's also possible to split the Berkshire unitaries so that just West Berkshire is treated with Hampshire, with the other five giving a separate subregion.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2021, 02:40:41 PM »

Like Tack, I chose to attempt a region for fun and I chose to do London, I don't expect it to be any good



It does seem like London needs a new seat due to population growth though
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2021, 02:56:06 PM »

Like Tack, I chose to attempt a region for fun and I chose to do London, I don't expect it to be any good



It does seem like London needs a new seat due to population growth though

You’ve managed to make only safe seats out of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, and Hammersmith & Fulham by the way.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2021, 02:43:53 AM »

Like Tack, I chose to attempt a region for fun and I chose to do London, I don't expect it to be any good



It does seem like London needs a new seat due to population growth though

You’ve managed to make only safe seats out of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, and Hammersmith & Fulham by the way.

At least in K & C and H & F that's not that unlikely, though, is it?  A return to the 1997-2010 arrangement where the Labour areas in northern Kensington are put with the areas in the current Westminster North seat, leaving a fairly safe Tory Kensington & Chelsea, seems quite likely to make a comeback.

London is tricky because it's been a bit unlucky with the allocation algorithm.  Its entitlement is quite a bit closer to 76 than to 75 but it only gets 75 seats, so the average seat size needs to be over 74,000, while the upper electorate limit is still the same as everywhere else.  There are also some large wards in some boroughs, and while splitting them is an option we don't have the data to do this yet.

One thing I'd avoid doing is crossing the Thames, except maybe within the borough of Richmond, and certainly not east of the City.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2021, 02:59:57 AM »

This is my attempt at Kent:



There isn't a lot of change here except for the creation of a new seat, 18 on the map (and fairly obviously Tory).  This takes the Romney Marsh area from Folkestone & Hythe, the south and west of Ashford district and the east of Tunbridge Wells district.  (Ashford and Folkestone & Hythe are particularly oversized, so it makes sense to create the new seat in this area.)  There are a few knock-on effects absorbing excess electorate elsewhere, and I also decided that the minimal change re-arrangement of Maidstone and Faversham & Mid Kent didn't work very well, so decided to add the more urban wards to Maidstone and the rural wards currently in Maidstone to F & MK.

1. North Thanet
2. South Thanet
3. Canterbury
4. Dover
5. Folkestone & Hythe
6. Ashford
7. Sittingbourne & Sheppey
8. Faversham & Mid Kent
9. Gillingham
10. Chatham & Aylesford
11. Rochester & Strood
12. Gravesham
13. Dartford
14. Sevenoaks
15. Tonbridge
16. Maidstone
17. Tunbridge Wells
18. Tenterden & Dungeness
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2021, 04:09:10 AM »

Like Tack, I chose to attempt a region for fun and I chose to do London, I don't expect it to be any good



It does seem like London needs a new seat due to population growth though

You’ve managed to make only safe seats out of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, and Hammersmith & Fulham by the way.

At least in K & C and H & F that's not that unlikely, though, is it?  A return to the 1997-2010 arrangement where the Labour areas in northern Kensington are put with the areas in the current Westminster North seat, leaving a fairly safe Tory Kensington & Chelsea, seems quite likely to make a comeback.

London is tricky because it's been a bit unlucky with the allocation algorithm.  Its entitlement is quite a bit closer to 76 than to 75 but it only gets 75 seats, so the average seat size needs to be over 74,000, while the upper electorate limit is still the same as everywhere else.  There are also some large wards in some boroughs, and while splitting them is an option we don't have the data to do this yet.

One thing I'd avoid doing is crossing the Thames, except maybe within the borough of Richmond, and certainly not east of the City.

Couldn't you combine the current Two Cities seat with some of Camden, and then add some of the Tory areas in Two Cities to the current Westminster North, thereby making the two a little less safe?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2021, 04:37:35 AM »

Couldn't you combine the current Two Cities seat with some of Camden, and then add some of the Tory areas in Two Cities to the current Westminster North, thereby making the two a little less safe?

Perhaps, but the Commissions aren't supposed to take account of the likely results, so not unless there's some independent motivation for doing that.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2021, 02:29:09 AM »

For fun and to see just how badly I get piled upon, here is Wales. For the record I did not pay any attention to what the current constituencies look like though I did take a look at the primary authorities map.



North Wales inset



South Wales inset



When you're doing Wales, you really need to look at where the roads go. You've got a couple of constituencies which are joined together by mountain tracks as best.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2021, 08:17:18 PM »
« Edited: May 15, 2021, 09:11:25 AM by Oryxslayer »

I decided to take a look at Wales for fun to see how things stand, since that is the region which will change the most, and it seems like there will be a lot of hard choices made.

- The Northeast has the pop for four seats. One will be entirely Denbighshire given it falls within the 5% threshold. You'll then have one in Flintshire, one in Wrexham, and one crossing mostly in Flint. The Wrexham seat will have the city, but the Flintshire seat could be Deeside+Coast, Buckley+Coast, or a weird Wrexham Suburbs+Coast seat.

- Carmarthenshire has the pop for two seats. Nothing too meaningful on its own, but In combination with the 20.15 seats for the Valleys, this leads to weirdness.

- Penbrokeshire and Ceredigion combined have another two seats. It means the Ceredigion seat will take a bit from her neighbor...

- Which forces the unholy pairing of Powys and the Northwest. Which is hard given the lack of roads and the mountains. Preferably Powys would go with the valleys given it has 1.2 seats and the southern areas are easiest to remove.

- So lets follow this orientation and take Breckon and the rest of south Powys to the valleys. This means Carmarthenshire must be cut along with Pembrokeshire, so that the second Carmarthen seat  can get complete. The Pembroke+Carmarthen+Valleys+Breckon has 24 seats on the dot.

- Ceredigion now goes northwards and everything almost works out on paper. But the Powys surplus is not solved (I guess it goes with Monmouthshire?), the unholyness now plays out in Carmarthenshire, and the Northwest pairing is just barely overpopulated for 3 seats even at maximum allowed deviation.

Theres also the puzzle of how you cut Conwy since the natural cuttings from the city to Llanwst, or the coast vs interior both leave the Conwy seat overpopulated.  


And this is before I even bothered with the valleys.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2021, 05:56:31 AM »
« Edited: May 16, 2021, 06:04:39 AM by YL »

Yes, this was my first attempt at Wales:







... but that Meirionnydd Nant Conwy a Gogledd Maldwyn thing (no. 13) is not good, and it's not without issues in the south.

(There are a few tweaks I'd make now, but I haven't updated the picture.)
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2021, 06:14:39 AM »
« Edited: May 16, 2021, 06:18:22 AM by Geoffrey Howe »

How can I remove wards from constituencies as I go along?

Also, are there any estimates by polling district?
Logged
Conservatopia
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,182
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 0.72, S: 8.60

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2021, 06:17:54 AM »

Just having a quick decco at the areas I'm familiar with.

That N. Swansea/Loughor seat is a bit unusual.  It stretches between some fairly disparate areas.  The Gorseinon, Loughor, Gowerton area is more similar to the rest of Gower.  Would it be easier to try and recreate the old Gower seat but have The Mumbles in Seat 30?  Correct me if the numbers wouldn't work out. Smiley

Seat 25 is also slightly strange.  Could a seat anchored on Porthcawl be viable?  I get you're trying to follow county lines though but personally splitting Porth and Bridgend seems better.

I like what you've done in Cardiff, Caerphilly and Pontypridd.  The valleys look good too.  Would the Shadow Home Secretary be a little safer now in Torfaen?

Splitting Powys still makes sense. Smiley

The Aberystwyth-Fishguard seat is cool too.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 16, 2021, 06:49:08 AM »

Just having a quick decco at the areas I'm familiar with.

That N. Swansea/Loughor seat is a bit unusual.  It stretches between some fairly disparate areas.  The Gorseinon, Loughor, Gowerton area is more similar to the rest of Gower.  Would it be easier to try and recreate the old Gower seat but have The Mumbles in Seat 30?  Correct me if the numbers wouldn't work out. Smiley

That's one of the areas I wasn't happy with.  An alternative I have there keeps the Gower seat except for removing Clydach and Mawr and adding a few wards currently in Swansea West (the Killays, Dunvant and Cockett), turns seat 30 into more of a Swansea Central seat, and adds Clydach, Mawr, Morriston, Llansamlet and Bonymaen to seat 29.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15  
« 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 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.