Sheffield constituencies- changes proposed

The USA has twenty times our geographical area, six times our population, and manages with only 435; it's hard to argue that we need six hundred.

 

Given how abysmal US politicans are, I'm not too sure that's always such a good example.

 

Plus it was America which gave the world Gerrymandering in the first place with Elbridge Gerry back in 1812.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Stoatwobbler
.

That's just about inevitable. Sheffield is fairly central to Britain; you cannot start there and work outwards, because you'd end up with problems in all sorts of coastal areas. When looking at the country as a whole, you need to start around the edges and work inwards - because central constituencies can always be adjusted to suit, they border on other consituencies in all directions.

 

If Grimsby's size is wrong, throwing in some areas of the North Sea won't help. If Sheffield South West's size is wrong, you have options all over the place to help you fix it.

 

There's only one boundary that's vaguely respected in all this, the border between Sheffield and Derbyshire as it's also part of the border between the Yorkshire and East Midlands regions.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Stoatwobbler
.

unlike here, in the USA, the executive isn't drawn from the legislature and while party politics does come into play there seems to be more of a desire for the legislature to hold the executive to account.

 

personally, i would be quite happy for a greater separation between our executive and legislature.

 

 

This much I totally agree with. Seperation of legislature and executive would be a huge improvement on the way things currently work. However it would make the government much more accountable and no political party with any chance of grabbing power wants that.

I'd quite like to have my own constituency if that's OK (area 51 and a half), bordering on the front door to the shed at the bottom of the garden, then right to the privet hedge and back up to the front of my facility, using the party wall between me and the little old lady as the dividing line.

11 wards in the west ... along the upper Porter ... Broomhill and ... Upperthorpe and Netherthorpe.

- 6 wards in the north (north of the Don)

- 11 wards in the south and east ... a Heeley ... and an Attercliffe

That would work, with the slight modification of: remove south half of Burngreave from North, move Richmond to Heeley:

* Stocks, Stann, Hills, Full, Crookes, Walkley minus Neth/Upp: 79861, +4.2%

* WestEcc, EastEcc, Southey, Firth, Shiregreen, Shirecliffe/FirVale from Burngreave: 76446, -0.3%

* Dore, Ecclesall, NetherEdge, Broomhill, Central, Neth/Upp from Walkley: 76157, -0.6%

* Beauchief, Graves, Gleadless, Arbor, Manor, Richmond: 78566, +2.5%

* Mosb., Beighton, Birley, Woodhouse, Darnall, Bungreave minus Shirecliffe/FirVale: 75473, -1.5%

 

One problem is that there probably also needs to be a plan for the rest of South Yorkshire, as the Boundary Commission have completely ignored Sheffield's external boundary.

You don't necessarily have to specify the rest of South Yorkshire in detail, as long as you specify it within a overall framework. You can say "North Yorkshire: exactly 8 seats, Humberside: exactly 9 seats, South Yorkshire plus West Yorkshire: exactly 33 seats, within which Sheffield: exactly 5 seats". Edited September 13, 2011 by jgharston
Had included Hinde House in wrong total.

Wow, I have to congratulate you JHJ21, I've been working on the maps all evening, and I can't seem to improve on your suggestion - map now here.

Very good points:

* Repects very strong natural and community boundaries

* Only TWO wards split! I was sure I couldn't get fewer that five wards split, but your model only splits: Walkley Ward into the two natual communities of Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe and Walkley itself, and: Burngreave into the natural cummunities of "real" Burngreave (the area of the old ward), and the parts that are the natural edge of Brightside; Shirecliffe, Hinde House, etc.

* All but one variance less than 2.5%, all variencies well within the required 5%. The 4.2% of NorthWest could be dropped down to 0.9% if the student halls of residence at Endcliffe Edge were put into SouthWest, giving all five seats under 2.6%.

 

The only downside I see is that I would personally prefer to see the Rivelin Valley as a Constituency boundary, not the Porter Valley, but I can't juggle the numbers about to get Rivelin Valley working properly - everthing smushes together in the city centre.

 

I would strongly recommend you submit your model to the Boundary Commission.

OK, I'll bite.

 

Sheffield Hallam: Broomhill, Crookes, Dore and Totley, Ecclesall, Fulwood, western Nether Edge

 

Sheffield South East: Beighton, Birley, Manor Castle, Mosborough, Richmond, Woodhouse (same as Boundary Commission)

 

Sheffield Central and Heeley: Arbourthorne, Beauchief and Greenhill, Central, Gleadless Valley, Graves Park, eastern Nether Edge

 

Sheffield Hillsborough: Hillsborough, Southey, Stannington, Stocksbridge and Upper Don, Walkley, Grenoside area of West Ecclesfield

 

Sheffield Brightside: Burngreave, Darnall, East Ecclesfield, Firth Park, Shiregreen and Brightside, High Green area of West Ecclesfield

 

Only two wards split, five constituencies entirely within Sheffield.

Sheffield Hallam: 75351 -1.7%

Sheffield South East: 78338 +2.2%

Sheffield Central and Heeley: 77455 +1.1%

Sheffield Hillsborough: 75075 -2.0%

Sheffield Brightside: 80293 +4.7%

map here

 

Personal preference: I don't like the Sheaf Valley being crossed, and I don't like parishes being split. Bradfield currently complains about being split between Hallam and Penistone. Don't like Southey being split from the rest of Brightside, however, pushing Southey into Brightiside pushes all of West Ecclesfield out, splitting Ecclesfield Parish right down the middle. Brightside is slightly pushing towards the heavy side.

 

It does seem clear that everybody is gravitating towards five main core centres:

* Stocksbridge, Stannington, Hillsborough

* Dore, Ecclesall, Fulwood

* Beauchief, Graves, Gleadless

* Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Woodhouse

* Shiregreen, Firth Park, East Ecclesfield

 

I've written up JHJ21's model and an updated model of mine at mdfs.net/per13.

Edited September 13, 2011 by jgharston
typos typos typos

Personal preference: I don't like the Sheaf Valley being crossed, and I don't like parishes being split. Bradfield currently complains about being split between Hallam and Penistone. Don't like Southey being split from the rest of Brightside, however, pushing Southey into Brightiside pushes all of West Ecclesfield out, splitting Ecclesfield Parish right down the middle. Brightside is slightly pushing towards the heavy side.

 

As you say, it's personal preference, but I think that crossing the Sheaf Valley at the bottom of Woodseats is preferable to crossing the Rivelin Valley; there are good links at that point (and Nether Edge ward already crosses the river). Grenoside is quite separate from the rest of Ecclesfield parish, and with Southey forms a coherent area around Halifax Road, which is the main road down to Hillsborough. But, yes, nothing is perfect, and it would have been nice to be able to include it in Brightside.

General point re thread: with the exception of posts aimed at Mr Clegg and the like, or comparing/contrasting the UK and USA voting systems, I'm really impressed with SF members' constructive suggestions. And, yes, I have already made a similar suggestion to B.C., arguing for preservation of Sheffield's boundary within which five whole constituencies fit nice and tidily(ish).

 

Plus I still want Nether Edge to be with Ecclesall.

As you say, it's personal preference, but I think that crossing the Sheaf Valley at the bottom of Woodseats is preferable to crossing the Rivelin Valley; there are good links at that point (and Nether Edge ward already crosses the river).

Nether Edge Ward doesn't cross the Sheaf valley. It crosses the river, yes, but not the valley. The valley boundary was straightened to follow the railway line instead of the river because it is so wiggly, but the boundary is still the Sheaf Valley.

 

Yes, I don't like crossing the Rivelin, but I think JHJ21's model which does cross the Rivelin better groups areas together than the models so far that use the Rivelin as a boundary (mine included)

 

Grenoside is quite separate from the rest of Ecclesfield parish, and with Southey forms a coherent area around Halifax Road, which is the main road down to Hillsborough.

That's true, but the three Brightside wards are more-or-less a single entity, Genoside would probably work included with Southey/Firth/Shiregreen, but not just with a bit of Brightside hived off on it's own.

It's refreshing to read so much constructive and detailed comment.

 

Clearly those responsible for the proposals haven't had too much knowledge of local communities and their feelings. Little details can mean a lot to those concerned.

 

Writing from Bradway in S17, part of Dore & Totley ward, we're east of the Sheaf, but feel very much more part of west Sheffield, rather than south where people like SYPTE place us when considering bus services.

 

No doubt it was a sign of things to come when the small eastern part of Bradway beyond Twentywell Lane was carved off Dore & Totley city council ward to go to Beauchief and Greenhill to even things up. That wasn't totally unreasonable, but many would like to go back!

 

Although Dore and Totley ward is the largest in area in the proposed new constituency, most of the other wards have little in common.

 

The map attached to jgharston's recent posting, based on JHJ21's outline, makes far better sense from where I'm looking - http://mdfs.net/maps/Sheffield/per13/JHJ21a.gif

 

Boundaries will always cause hard decisions. I note they haven't dared tackle very much more unbalanced Scottish constituencies - yet. Then the fun really will start.

Edited September 14, 2011 by 1978