jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 11, 2021 17:53:21 GMT
This reminds me that I never posted my Norfolk/Suffolk scheme, basically because it's very similar to a lot of others upthread.
North West Norfolk - 70536. Unchanged except for ward realignment. North Norfolk - 74813. Broadland - 72988. A 'minimum change' option is available but it would have the effect of leaving Fakenham increasingly isolated at the western end of the seat, so instead I've shifted the whole Fakenham area into N Norfolk and kept this seat within range (and made it more compact) by adding Worstead, &c. Great Yarmouth - 70077. Coterminous with its district and unchanged.
Norwich North - 74086. Adds Thorpe Hamlet ward to get within range; I think this is better than what Pete Whitehead called the 'pixie hat' effect of adding Spixworth. Norwich South - 73515. This could have stayed unchanged, but the loss of Thorpe Hamlet means it has to add Old Costessey. But it's good to get the Costesseys together. South Norfolk - 70020. Loses its northwestern corner to get within range. Mid Norfolk - 75397. The current oversize seat shuffles eastward, gaining Hethersett, &c, from S Norfolk but losing territory, including Watton, Necton, on its opposite flank. South West Norfolk - 73054. Gains territory from Mid Norfolk but loses Thetford and adjacent areas. Thetford and Newmarket - 73423. The cross-border seat; and, importantly (in my view) for such a seat, firmly anchored by a large town on each side of the line. Although the configuration is very different, this seat takes over two-thirds of its electors from the existing W Suffolk and is best regarded as successor of that seat. Bury St Edmunds - 69780. The current seat is seriously oversize and loses all its territory in Mid Suffolk district and is completely realigned to take in Haverhill instead. South Suffolk - 71070. Modestly trimmed so as to coincide with Babergh district (but not adopting the name, please). Ipswich - 75117. Unchanged. Mid Suffolk - 70908. Probably best seen as the successor of the current horribly-named C Suffolk & Ipswich N, although actually taking less than half of its electorate from that seat. It takes Stowmarket and surrounding areas from Bury St Eds, and those to whom 'Mid' names are anathema might call it 'Stowmarket' instead. Woodbridge and Felixstowe - 75172. Really the successor to Suffolk Coastal but losing its entire northern area and picking up Kesgrave, &c. I'm very happy with this seat but I'm not claiming any originality for it because many other posters have had the same or very similar. (Indeed this comment might apply to this scheme as a whole.) Eye - 72939. The new seat, but it's a pleasure to see a fine old name revived. Lowestoft - 70418. The current Waveney seat, given a trim and a better name.
Thanks for your help recently with displaying images in posts, which was very much appreciated. I broadly like your solutions in Norfolk which make good food for thought. Although, I think I have to agree with Pete Whitehead 's ‘Pixie Hat’ arrangement for Norwich North as, with the rule of minimum change, it would be good to see Norwich South remain untouched as it sits very nicely in the SER as things stand. I find your changes in Suffolk harder to agree with. I think it’s an important note that the Boundary Commission will not be starting with a ‘blank canvas’ and consideration should be paid to how the current constituencies lie in order to avoid unnecessary change. I find it particularly hard to agree with your proposal for the Eye seat as Eye itself has little in common with coastal wards, from a community, geographical, and transport point of view. Furthermore, the A12 currently acts as a very good dividing line between the Suffolk Coastal and CSNI constituencies which I think should be maintained as far as is possible, respecting these well-established boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 11, 2021 19:12:09 GMT
Regarding Eye - You may be right, but a seat of that name with similar boundaries existed from 1885 to 1983 so there's good precedent for it.
Regarding help with the maps - My pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 11, 2021 20:03:33 GMT
Regarding Eye - You may be right, but a seat of that name with similar boundaries existed from 1885 to 1983 so there's good precedent for it. Regarding help with the maps - My pleasure. Yes, although the 1918-83 boundaries of Eye also contained Stowmarket, Needham Market, and surrounding villages near the River Gipping. Given the small size of Eye, the seat could conceivably be called Framlingham as well (since that small town is near the geographic centre of that seat).
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 11, 2021 20:16:33 GMT
Well Framlingham is twice the size of Eye, but would still be the smallest settlement by far to get a seat named after it. Stick to Suffolk Central. Seats should only by named after the largest town when there is a largest town, and it is indeed large.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 11, 2021 20:44:19 GMT
The county division had to be called after Eye, because the Borough of Eye was disfranchised in the 1885 redistribution which triggered the clause in the 'Instructions to the Commissioners' that "Each division will be named from some important town or place within it, preference being given to any merged borough or boroughs". Eye was never the largest town in the division.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 11, 2021 20:47:39 GMT
This reminds me that I never posted my Norfolk/Suffolk scheme, basically because it's very similar to a lot of others upthread.
North West Norfolk - 70536. Unchanged except for ward realignment. North Norfolk - 74813. Broadland - 72988. A 'minimum change' option is available but it would have the effect of leaving Fakenham increasingly isolated at the western end of the seat, so instead I've shifted the whole Fakenham area into N Norfolk and kept this seat within range (and made it more compact) by adding Worstead, &c. Great Yarmouth - 70077. Coterminous with its district and unchanged.
Norwich North - 74086. Adds Thorpe Hamlet ward to get within range; I think this is better than what Pete Whitehead called the 'pixie hat' effect of adding Spixworth. Norwich South - 73515. This could have stayed unchanged, but the loss of Thorpe Hamlet means it has to add Old Costessey. But it's good to get the Costesseys together. South Norfolk - 70020. Loses its northwestern corner to get within range. Mid Norfolk - 75397. The current oversize seat shuffles eastward, gaining Hethersett, &c, from S Norfolk but losing territory, including Watton, Necton, on its opposite flank. South West Norfolk - 73054. Gains territory from Mid Norfolk but loses Thetford and adjacent areas. Thetford and Newmarket - 73423. The cross-border seat; and, importantly (in my view) for such a seat, firmly anchored by a large town on each side of the line. Although the configuration is very different, this seat takes over two-thirds of its electors from the existing W Suffolk and is best regarded as successor of that seat. Bury St Edmunds - 69780. The current seat is seriously oversize and loses all its territory in Mid Suffolk district and is completely realigned to take in Haverhill instead. South Suffolk - 71070. Modestly trimmed so as to coincide with Babergh district (but not adopting the name, please). Ipswich - 75117. Unchanged. Mid Suffolk - 70908. Probably best seen as the successor of the current horribly-named C Suffolk & Ipswich N, although actually taking less than half of its electorate from that seat. It takes Stowmarket and surrounding areas from Bury St Eds, and those to whom 'Mid' names are anathema might call it 'Stowmarket' instead. Woodbridge and Felixstowe - 75172. Really the successor to Suffolk Coastal but losing its entire northern area and picking up Kesgrave, &c. I'm very happy with this seat but I'm not claiming any originality for it because many other posters have had the same or very similar. (Indeed this comment might apply to this scheme as a whole.) Eye - 72939. The new seat, but it's a pleasure to see a fine old name revived. Lowestoft - 70418. The current Waveney seat, given a trim and a better name.
Thanks for your help recently with displaying images in posts, which was very much appreciated. I broadly like your solutions in Norfolk which make good food for thought. Although, I think I have to agree with Pete Whitehead 's ‘Pixie Hat’ arrangement for Norwich North as, with the rule of minimum change, it would be good to see Norwich South remain untouched as it sits very nicely in the SER as things stand. I find your changes in Suffolk harder to agree with. I think it’s an important note that the Boundary Commission will not be starting with a ‘blank canvas’ and consideration should be paid to how the current constituencies lie in order to avoid unnecessary change. I find it particularly hard to agree with your proposal for the Eye seat as Eye itself has little in common with coastal wards, from a community, geographical, and transport point of view. Furthermore, the A12 currently acts as a very good dividing line between the Suffolk Coastal and CSNI constituencies which I think should be maintained as far as is possible, respecting these well-established boundaries. Stowmarket & Ipswich North would be a better name for that Mid Suffolk seat, even though it is similar to the 1983-97 constituency called Central Suffolk.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 11, 2021 20:51:02 GMT
I don't agree it should necessarily be the largest town. Some relatively small towns have a long history as constituency names even though the seat may contain larger places. Eye is a very good example. Others include Brigg, Wentworth, Easington, Bosworth, Wells and doubtless many others I can't call to mind at the moment.
This kind of tradition has great value and we should maintain it where we can.
(And 'Central Suffolk' wouldn't be geographically right, at least not for the 'Eye' seat I suggested. 'North (or North East) Suffolk' maybe, at an absolute pinch. But I much prefer 'Eye', which you must admit if nothing else has brevity on its side.)
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 11, 2021 20:52:00 GMT
Well Framlingham is twice the size of Eye, but would still be the smallest settlement by far to get a seat named after it. Stick to Suffolk Central. Seats should only by named after the largest town when there is a largest town, and it is indeed large. The proposed seat in question stretches out to the east coast (over to the seaside resort of Aldeburgh) and to the border with Norfolk, though (Central Devon does not touch the border with Cornwall or the Devonshire coast at any point), so "Suffolk Central" is not an appropriate name either.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 11, 2021 20:59:37 GMT
Well Framlingham is twice the size of Eye, but would still be the smallest settlement by far to get a seat named after it. Stick to Suffolk Central. Seats should only by named after the largest town when there is a largest town, and it is indeed large. The proposed seat in question stretches out to the east coast (over to the seaside resort of Aldeburgh) and to the border with Norfolk, though (Central Devon does not touch the border with Cornwall or the Devonshire coast at any point), so "Suffolk Central" is not an appropriate name either. Look I like Framlingham. It has an excellent castle and is a pleasant village, but it isn’t appropriate to name a parliamentary seat after it, nor the miserably rundown village of Eye.
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 11, 2021 21:29:41 GMT
The proposed seat in question stretches out to the east coast (over to the seaside resort of Aldeburgh) and to the border with Norfolk, though (Central Devon does not touch the border with Cornwall or the Devonshire coast at any point), so "Suffolk Central" is not an appropriate name either. Look I like Framlingham. It has an excellent castle and is a pleasant village, but it isn’t appropriate to name a parliamentary seat after it, nor the miserably rundown village of Eye. From looking at historical data, there was an eye constituency (which was shaped like a banana) and also a Woodbridge and Sudbury constituency which straddled ipswich with no connection between the two halves of the constituency. In 1983 these two strangely formed and disparate constituencies were replaced with the seats of central suffolk, suffolk coastal and south suffolk which work much better given Suffolk’s natural geography and road links. Most of the current CSNI constituency sits within the A12 and A140 road corridor. Hacking around the current current suffolk coastal constituency and the substantive central suffolk portion of the current CSNI constituency to create new constituencies is unnecessary change in my view and probably not something that the boundary commission would do as it lacks consistency with the legislation. I am also not sold on the suggested new eye constituency as there are very poor road and/or other transport connections between the different towns and villages. In any case, it seems a simpler and more in keeping with Suffolk’s natural geography and road infrastructure to add the north ipswich part of the current CSNI to the mid-suffolk portion of the current bury at Edmunds constituency, as a stowmarket and north ipswich constituency - United by the a14 corridor. Thus maintaining a central suffolk constituency in much the form it is in now but with the addition of excess electors in wards on the landward side of the A12 from suffolk coastal and Waveney.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 11, 2021 23:34:29 GMT
Speaking of minimum change, a Stowmarket constituency covering most of Mid Suffolk would also satisfy that criteria, meaning that the successor to Central Suffolk & Ipswich North (Woodbridge & Ipswich North in all likelihood) would keep all of the Ipswich North part (which includes de facto suburbs in Ipswich that are in East Suffolk as well as the Ipswich wards of Castle Hill, Whitehouse, and Whitton).
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,341
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Mar 12, 2021 9:23:08 GMT
I've now gone through this region: ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/eastern-england/Norfolk and Cambridgeshire aren't too exciting. Herts and Beds: cross-border seat at Hitchin. Bushey North ward in Watford. An end to the current SW Herts seat. Essex and Suffolk: cross-border seat on the Stour estuary. Two Essex doughnuts. Rayleigh and Wickford split up. Maldon and Witham joined up. I'm curious that you've chosen to pair Suffolk with Essex rather than with Norfolk as most others are suggesting.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 12, 2021 9:37:24 GMT
I don't agree it should necessarily be the largest town. Some relatively small towns have a long history as constituency names even though the seat may contain larger places. Eye is a very good example. Others include Brigg, Wentworth, Easington, Bosworth, Wells and doubtless many others I can't call to mind at the moment. This kind of tradition has great value and we should maintain it where we can. Wells is not a town. Or at least, the one with a parliamentary constituency named after it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 12, 2021 9:41:39 GMT
The proposed seat in question stretches out to the east coast (over to the seaside resort of Aldeburgh) and to the border with Norfolk, though (Central Devon does not touch the border with Cornwall or the Devonshire coast at any point), so "Suffolk Central" is not an appropriate name either. Look I like Framlingham. It has an excellent castle and is a pleasant village, but it isn’t appropriate to name a parliamentary seat after it, nor the miserably rundown village of Eye. Let's just take a leaf out of the Australians' book for naming constituencies and call it Sheeran.
|
|
|
Post by jonhol on Mar 15, 2021 11:05:55 GMT
I’ve had a look at the Norfolk and Suffolk sub-region over the weekend as I have some family in the area as well as a broad interest in boundaries. I plan on looking at a few regions that take my interest, maybe looking at Liverpool or other parts of the North West next. I’ve based my Suffolk suggestions in the map below on jbp79 's suggestions because I think these look most reasonable and stick nicely with the minimum change principle. However, I have made a slight change to the Central Suffolk seat, keeping Claydon and Barham in the current boundaries of the CSNI seat within the proposed Central Suffolk seat whilst moving Gislingham and Palgrave into the new seat based around Stowmarket. Looking at Norfolk, I’ve had a look and tried to avoid the Watton protrusion that jbp79 proposed. I think the suggestions on the map below seem to broadly work well but I am open to any thoughts. 1. Central Suffolk - 70,132. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal - 72,955. Yes 3. Ipswich - 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk - 73,821. Yes 5. Waveney - 70,418. Yes 6. Gipping Valley (/Stowmarket) - 71,310. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds - 73,698. Yes 8. Newmarket & Thetford Forest - 71,376. Yes 9. Broadland - 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk - 72,767. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth - 72,739. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 74,594. Yes 13. North West Norfolk - 70,536. Yes 14. Norwich North - 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South - 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk – 69,943. Yes 17. South West Norfolk – 73,054. Yes
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 15, 2021 15:29:48 GMT
So, looking at another alternative for Suffolk constituencies, and trying to minimise unnecessary change and disruption, I have come up with the below proposal as an alternative: 1. Central Suffolk - 75,204. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal – 70,087. Yes 3. Ipswich - 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 5. Waveney – 73,967. Yes 6. Stowmarket - 72,834. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds – 71,827. Yes 8. Newmarket & Thetford Forest - 71,376. Yes 9. Broadland - 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk - 72,767. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth - 72,739. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk - 70,264. Yes 13. North West Norfolk - 70,536. Yes 14. Norwich North - 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South - 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk - 76,528. Yes 17. South West Norfolk - 71,159. Yes This proposal creates a new Stowmarket constituency and maintains a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency. However, a weakness of this proposal is the slightly odd shape of the new Stowmarket seat. I have also not addressed the issues identified in my previous post regarding Norfolk in this plan. However, assuming the Boundary Commission go with using the existing constituencies as building blocks then the natural geography and structure of the current CSNI seat points toward maintaining the bulk of the current constituency as Central Suffolk with the North Ipswich parts forming a new constituency with Stowmarket as a new constituency of Stowmarket and North Ipswich. The precedent for a Central Suffolk constituency combined with the geographical argument for its existence is very strong and a seat of this nature has existed in a similar form since 1983. So, to break it up to create additional new constituencies is unnecessary and undesirable in my view. I still prefer my initial proposal below: 1. Central Suffolk - 70,295. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal - 72,955. Yes 3. Ipswich - 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk - 73,821. Yes 5. Waveney - 70,418. Yes 6. Stowmarket and North Ipswich - 71,147. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds - 73,698. Yes 8. Newmarket & Thetford Forest - 71,376. Yes 9. Broadland - 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk - 72,767. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth - 72,739. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk - 70,264. Yes 13. North West Norfolk - 70,536. Yes 14. Norwich North - 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South - 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk - 76,528. Yes 17. South West Norfolk - 71,159. Yes
|
|
alexj
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2
|
Post by alexj on Mar 17, 2021 19:40:18 GMT
So, looking at another alternative for Suffolk constituencies, and trying to minimise unnecessary change and disruption, I have come up with the below proposal as an alternative: 1. Central Suffolk - 75,204. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal – 70,087. Yes 3. Ipswich - 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 5. Waveney – 73,967. Yes 6. Stowmarket - 72,834. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds – 71,827. Yes 8. Newmarket & Thetford Forest - 71,376. Yes 9. Broadland - 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk - 72,767. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth - 72,739. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk - 70,264. Yes 13. North West Norfolk - 70,536. Yes 14. Norwich North - 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South - 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk - 76,528. Yes 17. South West Norfolk - 71,159. Yes This proposal creates a new Stowmarket constituency and maintains a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency. However, a weakness of this proposal is the slightly odd shape of the new Stowmarket seat. I have also not addressed the issues identified in my previous post regarding Norfolk in this plan. However, assuming the Boundary Commission go with using the existing constituencies as building blocks then the natural geography and structure of the current CSNI seat points toward maintaining the bulk of the current constituency as Central Suffolk with the North Ipswich parts forming a new constituency with Stowmarket as a new constituency of Stowmarket and North Ipswich. The precedent for a Central Suffolk constituency combined with the geographical argument for its existence is very strong and a seat of this nature has existed in a similar form since 1983. So, to break it up to create additional new constituencies is unnecessary and undesirable in my view. I still prefer my initial proposal below: 1. Central Suffolk - 70,295. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal - 72,955. Yes 3. Ipswich - 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk - 73,821. Yes 5. Waveney - 70,418. Yes 6. Stowmarket and North Ipswich - 71,147. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds - 73,698. Yes 8. Newmarket & Thetford Forest - 71,376. Yes 9. Broadland - 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk - 72,767. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth - 72,739. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk - 70,264. Yes 13. North West Norfolk - 70,536. Yes 14. Norwich North - 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South - 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk - 76,528. Yes 17. South West Norfolk - 71,159. Yes
|
|
alexj
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2
|
Post by alexj on Mar 17, 2021 19:41:19 GMT
I would also stick with your original proposal.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 18, 2021 0:57:49 GMT
I've now gone through this region: ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/eastern-england/Norfolk and Cambridgeshire aren't too exciting. Herts and Beds: cross-border seat at Hitchin. Bushey North ward in Watford. An end to the current SW Herts seat. Essex and Suffolk: cross-border seat on the Stour estuary. Two Essex doughnuts. Rayleigh and Wickford split up. Maldon and Witham joined up. I'm curious that you've chosen to pair Suffolk with Essex rather than with Norfolk as most others are suggesting. Well, when I looked at Norfolk it was obvious that little change was needed, so pairing would cause unnecessary disruption. Meanwhile, although Essex can obviously be dealt with on its own, it does have 30,000 excess voters which can be quite a nuisance to fit into the existing seats, especially the Harwich-and-Colchester-suburbs thing.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 18, 2021 14:55:40 GMT
I hadn't considered making any changes to the Ipswich seat, but doing so might be the key to unlocking a neater Suffolk. The question is whether the BCE would swallow that. The plan posted by mattb has a remarkably tidy North East Essex, but it looks at first glance like Saffron Walden has an orphan ward and that Chelmsford is doughnutted. Like Pete I ended up with a 'Witham & Woodham' constituency in order to avoid the latter, but having a friend from South Woodham Ferrers I realise how problematic that could prove to be. Since Uttlesford is only slightly under quota, adding an orphan ward is acceptable. What's wrong with doughnuts? I don't see any need to avoid them.
|
|