The anomaly is actually Hove itself. It’s utterly schizophrenic. The western half (Aldrington, Fishersgate, Portslade) is Edwardian and (primarily) 20th century, less affluent and more industrial than “core” Hove, and merges imperceptibly into Southwick, Shoreham, and Lancing.

I haven’t tried juggling the figures to see if it makes sense in terms of the BC parameters, but in terms of how the place feels a “natural” split of the Sussex coast to the west of Eastbourne would have seats for Chichester, Bognor & Littlehampton (both seats much as currently defined), Worthing (effectively the current West Worthing), Shoreham (covering Lancing to Aldrington), Brighton & Hove South (the coastal and central strip based on the A259 from King Alfreds to St Dunstans), Brighton & Hove North (the inland strip based on the A27 from Holmbush to Falmer/Woodingdean), and Newhaven (Rottingdean to Seaford).

No argument about Lewes & Brighton East (only the name) but why create ‘Brighton & Hove North’ and ‘Brighton Pavilion & Hove’ when the current ‘Brighton Pavilion’ and ‘Hove’ could have been retained.

Looking at the proposed maps why not keep….

Brunswick & Adelaide
Goldmid
Hove Central

…in Hove and have……

Hollingdean & Stanmer
Patcham
Withdean

…….in Brighton Pavilion?

This would be much more logical and I though the boundary commission were expected to retain existing constituencies as much as possible unless unavoidable.

The clear historical Brighton and Hove destinctions would be retained, unless the current BC thinking is to disregard this on the notion that the two old boroughs are now effectively a single city.

Also, maintaining the current urban / suburban mix keeps both constituencies at an adequate geographical size.

Why are the boundary changes in Brighton & Hove so radical for no reason.

In fact, it appears even smaller than most constituencies in Greater London, and much more dense.

See also Poole & Bournemouth, Warwick & Leamington etc. We could do with a lot more cities properly reflecting the built up urban area. Nottingham is particularly bad.

I don’t know why they went for a sandwich approach to Paisley rather than a doughnut. Possibly they felt that Renfrew had to be included in a Paisley seat, as most of its main lines of communication go southwards towards Paisley rather than westwards – though that didn’t stop them including Renfrew in a non-Paisley seat in the Scottish parliament boundary review.

GMT does not change. It is permanent.
Each nation sets its local time to GMT+/- x hours x minutes.

Therefore the government is proposing that our time in winter would be GMT+1 rather than GMT as now.

Consequenrtly BST would be GMT+2.

Running competitions to make places cities has become a cheap gimmick by politicians who cannot do anything better because they have ruined the country economically. Sadly, many electors seems to get taken in by this.

Messing about with the clocks is a similar disgrace. The sun is overhead at Greenwich, i.e. London, at 12 noon Greenwich Mean Time. So we ought to have permanent GMT. If you want more daylight time in either the morning or the evening, change what times factories, schools, offices, shops etc. open at. Don’t make a nonsense of the clocks. But again, remarkably few people seem to take in that changing the clock does not actually change the way the sun goes round the earth.

They read like each constituency includes the whole of Paisley. ‘Renfrewshire North’ and ‘Renfrewshire South’ would have made more sense, or create a donut so that there was a ‘Paisley’ constituency and a ‘Renfrewshire’ constituency.

Renfrewshire could perhaps have been called Renfrewshire Mid to avoid confusion with East Renfrewshire and Inverclyde (the Western part of Renfrewshire).