Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2021 20:20:24 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. Well, to be fair I actually voted in a doughnutted constituency in 2019 so I shouldn't object to them too much, but I do think there's a general consensus they should be avoided where neater solutions are available. I've revised my plans for Essex since I made the comment you quoted back in January anyway.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 18, 2021 21:10:51 GMT
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. Well, to be fair I actually voted in a doughnutted constituency in 2019 so I shouldn't object to them too much, but I do think there's a general consensus they should be avoided where neater solutions are available. I've revised my plans for Essex since I made the comment you quoted back in January anyway. If there's an anti-doughnut consensus, I'm not part of it. IMO if you have a town or city of roughly the right size for a constituency or a little bigger, and with a considerable hinterland which looks to the town/city but isn't really part of it, then they can be a reasonable solution. Chelmsford and Colchester both fit the bill.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2021 21:42:17 GMT
The Essex double doughnut, then? It'll never catch on.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 19, 2021 10:53:47 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. Given the substantial changes made around northern Essex, which cause unnecessary disruption to existing Suffolk constituencies (South Suffolk should just be coterminous with Babergh, and Sudbury has no links with Bury St Edmunds) linking Halstead, Haverhill and Newmarket would be much better for pairing Essex and Suffolk. The problem is that even though Norfolk does not need to be paired with Suffolk, its redrawn constituencies undergo less drastic change (except in SW Norfolk's case) if it is. When I tried an Essex-Suffolk pairing with Norfolk standing alone, I could not leave NW Norfolk intact and the changes required in both Norwich seats were more substantial. The same goes for Broadland and North Norfolk.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,129
|
Post by maxque on Mar 19, 2021 17:02:22 GMT
I'm not impressed by Fakenham hinterland being split between 3 constituencies.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 19, 2021 17:20:01 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. Given the substantial changes made around Northern Essex, which cause unnecessary disruption to existing Suffolk constituencies (South Suffolk should just be coterminous with Babergh, and Sudbury has no links with Bury St Edmunds) linking Halstead, Haverhill and Newmarket would be much better for pairing Essex and Suffolk. The problem is that even Norfolk does not need to be paired with Suffolk, its redrawn constituencies undergo less drastic change (except in SW Norfolk's case) if it is. When I tried an Essex-Suffolk pairing with Norfolk standing alone, I could not leave NW Norfolk intact and the changes required in both Norwich seats were more substantial. The same goes for Broadland and North Norfolk. I agree with this. Although the Essex/Suffolk plan suggested by Adrian actually works out surprisingly well, the irony is that treating Norfolk separately results in bigger changes to its seats than pairing it with Suffolk. So I prefer to pair the North Folk with the South Folk, which to my mind is a more natural combination than the South Folk and East Saxons.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 20, 2021 19:34:05 GMT
The Stour isn't really a divide on the ground and there are a lot of shared interests across it. So in principle I wouldn't have a problem with that pairing. In practice, I don't think Adrian's map is a particularly good solution and the numbers render it unnecessary.
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 22, 2021 12:59:26 GMT
I have seen some posts which suggest merging Suffolk with Essex, but I think this creates huge and unnecessary change across Essex, Suffolk, and consequentially also in Norfolk constituencies. Over the weekend I have revisited my plans for the Norfolk and Suffolk sub-region. In the map below I have tried to keep in line with the minimum change principle which uses the existing constituencies as building blocks, and I think this map provides a better method for crossing the Norfolk/Suffolk border at Diss rather than through Thetford Forest. This seems to me to be a better option than my previous proposals. Furthermore, this option below makes balancing constituencies in Norfolk much easier and visually much more appealing whilst also maintaining natural boundaries and respecting local communities. As with previous posts, where change is not needed, I have tried to avoid unnecessary changes where possible. Finally, this proposal mops up excess electors from current CSNI, South Norfolk and Bury St Edmunds seats to create a new seat (Stowmarket & Diss) which allows the existing constituencies in Suffolk and Norfolk to remain unchanged where they are within quota or minimally changed. 1. North Ipswich & Woodbridge – 74,863. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal – 73,636. Yes 3. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 5. Waveney – 70,418. Yes 6. Stowmarket & Diss – 69,823. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds – 71,705. Yes 8. West Suffolk – 71,871. Yes 9. Broadland – 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 73,533. Yes 13. North West Norfolk – 74,726. Yes 14. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk – 73,188. Yes 17. South West Norfolk – 72,074. Yes
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 22, 2021 14:34:07 GMT
That's actually not bad, overall, but I'd look again at the treatment of Woodbridge and Melton because their omission from Suffolk Coastal leaves Felixstowe isolated from the rest of the seat by the river Deben (unbridged below Melton).
But that can be addressed by a few tweaks, and in terms of the map as a whole, you've made a pretty plausible case for crossing the county boundary in the Diss area.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 22, 2021 19:00:11 GMT
That's actually not bad, overall, but I'd look again at the treatment of Woodbridge and Melton because their omission from Suffolk Coastal leaves Felixstowe isolated from the rest of the seat by the river Deben (unbridged below Melton). But that can be addressed by a few tweaks, and in terms of the map as a whole, you've made a pretty plausible case for crossing the county boundary in the Diss area. I agree there's a lot to like about that plan, but I'm not sure a few tweaks would fix it. If you add Felixstowe in to the north Ipswich seat, then the coastal seat can't gain enough electors from Woodbridge and Framlingham and taking any more splits the Felixstowe-Ipswich seat in half. To avoid that you need to have two seats crossing the Mid Suffolk-Suffolk Coastal boundary, at which point you're better off just having a Felixstowe & Woodbridge seat instead.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 22, 2021 19:34:08 GMT
Well, you could add in Martlesham, Woodbridge, Melton, Wickham Mkt in exchange for the four more northerly wards not reaching the coast (thus preserving the existing not-very-attractive boundary near Ipswich). Stowmarket then goes in with north Ipswich with an extensive cross-border seat to the north (Eye and Diss?). I agree those changes are more than just tweaks, but they preserve the Suffolk coastal seat and the border crossing at Diss so I feel they are somewhat in the spirit of the plan. I am not saying this is my preferred option, but I do admit that jbp79 has got me once more looking seriously at an eastern border-crossing, probably involving Diss, because it definitely allows better seats of W Suffolk and Bury St Eds, both requiring much less change from the current map.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 22, 2021 19:54:25 GMT
This option with an eastern crossing ("Blything & Waveney Valley" ??) is a minimum-change option: apart from the new seat (and alignment to new ward boundaries) this moves only about 45,000 voters between constituencies across the two counties. 6 constituencies are unchanged apart from new ward boundaries.
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 23, 2021 14:39:12 GMT
Thank you islington for your comments on my post yesterday. I think you made some good points which I have addressed in the revised map below. This revision now keeps Martlesham, Woodbridge, and Melton wards in Suffolk Coastal to avoid the potential issue of Felixstowe being a little isolated by the River Deben. I actually think this revision works better across the rest of the proposed Suffolk seats. Norfolk is unchanged. This map improves on my previous version, as the minimal change and least disruptive option by preserving much more of the current CSNI and Suffolk Coastal constituencies. Furthermore, as a minimal change option, this effectively mops up the extra electors from Bury St Edmunds, CSNI, South Norfolk, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney into one cohesive new constituency - the Stowmarket & Diss constituency. The proposed Stowmarket and Diss constituency has excellent connectivity along the A143 between Diss & Bungay and the A140 from Diss to Stowmarket. There is also a rail line between Diss and Stowmarket which connects the constituency well. Needham market and surrounding villages sits well within the CSNI constituency - it seems strange that It wasn’t already part of the existing CSNI constituency. This seems a very workable minimal change option which minimises disruption to the existing constituencies. 1. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 71,020. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal – 76,011. Yes 3. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 5. Lowestoft – 73,967. Yes 6. Stowmarket & Diss – 70,213. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds – 71,226. Yes 8. West Suffolk – 69,879. Yes 9. Broadland – 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 73,533. Yes 13. North West Norfolk – 74,726. Yes 14. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk – 73,188. Yes 17. South West Norfolk – 72,074. Yes
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 23, 2021 15:55:26 GMT
Thank you islington for your comments on my post yesterday. I think you made some good points which I have addressed in the revised map below. This revision now keeps Martlesham, Woodbridge, and Melton wards in Suffolk Coastal to avoid the potential issue of Felixstowe being a little isolated by the River Deben. I actually think this revision works better across the rest of the proposed Suffolk seats. Norfolk is unchanged. This map improves on my previous version, as the minimal change and least disruptive option by preserving much more of the current CSNI and Suffolk Coastal constituencies. Furthermore, as a minimal change option, this effectively mops up the extra electors from Bury St Edmunds, CSNI, South Norfolk, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney into one cohesive new constituency - the Stowmarket & Diss constituency. The proposed Stowmarket and Diss constituency has excellent connectivity along the A143 between Diss & Bungay and the A140 from Diss to Stowmarket. There is also a rail line between Diss and Stowmarket which connects the constituency well. Needham market and surrounding villages sits well within the CSNI constituency - it seems strange that It wasn’t already part of the existing CSNI constituency. This seems a very workable minimal change option which minimises disruption to the existing constituencies. 1. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 71,020. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal – 76,011. Yes 3. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 5. Lowestoft – 73,967. Yes 6. Stowmarket & Diss – 70,213. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds – 71,226. Yes 8. West Suffolk – 69,879. Yes 9. Broadland – 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 73,533. Yes 13. North West Norfolk – 74,726. Yes 14. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk – 73,188. Yes 17. South West Norfolk – 72,074. Yes Looking at this a little further, I think the map below showing a slight tweak to my post earlier this afternoon seems to make more geographical sense. There is a little more change than is absolutely necessary in this updated map, but I think considering the geographical factors it is still very plausible. islington I would be interested to get your thoughts on which of these two you prefer? 1. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 71,020. Yes 2. Suffolk Coastal – 72,955. Yes 3. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 4. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 5. Lowestoft – 70,418. Yes 6. Stowmarket & Diss – 76,818. Yes 7. Bury St Edmunds – 71,226. Yes 8. West Suffolk – 69,879. Yes 9. Broadland – 75,463. Yes 10. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 11. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 73,533. Yes 13. North West Norfolk – 74,726. Yes 14. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 15. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 16. South Norfolk – 73,188. Yes 17. South West Norfolk – 72,074. Yes
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 23, 2021 17:00:50 GMT
jbp79 - is the only difference that in the second map Suffolk Coastal gains Kessingland and loses Halesworth? I certainly agree that's an improvement. But both plans are excellent and make a strong case for a Diss crossing. I came up with this.
It's based on minimum change, despite the awkwardness this involves in the Fakenham area and the Norwich N 'pixie hat' (in fact the Broadland seat generally is really sub-optimal in this approach). If I've counted correctly, seven of the seats are either unchanged completely or simply realigned to new wards. Elsewhere, each of the present seats has a very clear successor except in the central Suffolk area, where an additional seat has to be accommodated so more more substantial changes are inevitable.
There are a number of minor differences with your map, e.g. Attleborough stays in Mid Norfolk, my W Suffolk is not so much attenuated in the middle; but the only major change is that I've put Stowmarket in with north Ipswich and adjoining areas. This means a seat of Eye & Diss (or possibly N Suffolk & Diss).
I've been meaning to ask you whether your interest is confined to Norfolk and Suffolk. You clearly have a knack for this and it would be great to see your thoughts in other areas.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 23, 2021 18:54:19 GMT
jbp79 - is the only difference that in the second map Suffolk Coastal gains Kessingland and loses Halesworth? I certainly agree that's an improvement. But both plans are excellent and make a strong case for a Diss crossing. I came up with this.
It's based on minimum change, despite the awkwardness this involves in the Fakenham area and the Norwich N 'pixie hat' (in fact the Broadland seat generally is really sub-optimal in this approach). If I've counted correctly, seven of the seats are either unchanged completely or simply realigned to new wards. Elsewhere, each of the present seats has a very clear successor except in the central Suffolk area, where an additional seat has to be accommodated so more more substantial changes are inevitable.
There are a number of minor differences with your map, e.g. Attleborough stays in Mid Norfolk, my W Suffolk is not so much attenuated in the middle; but the only major change is that I've put Stowmarket in with north Ipswich and adjoining areas. This means a seat of Eye & Diss (or possibly N Suffolk & Diss).
I've been meaning to ask you whether your interest is confined to Norfolk and Suffolk. You clearly have a knack for this and it would be great to see your thoughts in other areas.
Looks pretty familiar - see mine a few posts up
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Mar 23, 2021 19:08:48 GMT
In terms of my modified plan, yes, halesworth goes from suffolk coastal to the new stowmarket and diss constituency and coastal gains kessingland from Waveney/Lowestoft.
Thank you for your kind comments.
I am hoping to find some time over Easter to post plans for other areas but as I have family in norfolk and have worked in the ipswich area, I know that part of the world well and wanted to start with somewhere that I know.
On balance, I think largely obliterating/changing the current CSNI constituency is unnecessary change and feel putting kesgrave, stowmarket and north west ipswich together as has been suggested is not a viable or well interconnected proposition for a constituency - particularly given the amount of change from the current constituency formation this would mean.
It is easier, and more natural, and minimises disruption to existing constituencies, in my view, to mop up the excess electors in the current bury st Edmunds, CSNI, South Norfolk, Waveney and Suffolk Coastal constituencies to create a new constituency of stowmarket and diss which leaves the current CSNI largely unchanged.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 24, 2021 19:40:27 GMT
The newly published data confirm the suspicion that the electorate figures in Cambridge published in January were wrong: Trumpington's figure is actually 6447.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 24, 2021 20:41:41 GMT
The newly published data confirm the suspicion that the electorate figures in Cambridge published in January were wrong: Trumpington's figure is actually 6447. Compared with the previously supplied number of 9283, a difference of 2836.
Are those phantom electors that never existed? In that case our UK quota figure of 73393 will be slightly off.
Or do they belong in some other ward and if so, which?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 24, 2021 20:45:34 GMT
The newly published data confirm the suspicion that the electorate figures in Cambridge published in January were wrong: Trumpington's figure is actually 6447. Compared with the previously supplied number of 9283, a difference of 2836. Are those phantom electors that never existed? In that case our UK quota figure of 73393 will be slightly off. Or do they belong in some other ward and if so, which?
The total for Cambridge is 84,955 so the same as was reported but clearly for every ward they had reported the figures for the old ward boundaries
|
|