|
Post by beacon on Apr 10, 2021 15:41:20 GMT
All of the contributors above are far more qualified than me on boundary analysis. But, I think it is worth noting that in local sports leagues, teams from Lowestoft, Kirkley, Beccles and Bungay play in Norfolk leagues. There are more Norwich fans around the Norfolk/Suffolk border than Ipswich fans. Whereas there are less sporting links with Newmarket and Stowmarket. There are regular buses from Lowestoft, Beccles and Bungay into Norwich, which again does not apply to Newmarket and Stowmarket.
I played a lot of cricket in South Norfolk and regularly played at Denes Oval in Lowestoft in away fixtures. A nice cricket ground with a huge playing area, on one side the cliff and the other the North Sea. The ground is so big my mate got an all run 6 in one game, as the fielder was somewhat incapacitated with gout.
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Apr 12, 2021 16:25:02 GMT
A good point, well made about football teams - if you live in north Suffolk, say in Beccles or Bungay then you probably support Norwich City and if you live a little closer to Ipswich in Debenham or Needham Market then you support Ipswich Town. Ed Sheeran is a Framlingham resident and a big supporter of Ipswich Town. I still prefer the scheme I suggested earlier in the thread for Norfolk and Suffolk but can see merit in the anglian scheme which also suggests Diss as being the best place to cross the county boundary. Whilst I do not fully accept East Anglian Lefty 's concerns about Stowupland needing to be in the same constituency as Stowmarket, in the context of Anglian’s proposal, this change could present a more pleasing constituency structure. So I set out below a slightly modified proposal: 1. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 2. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 3. Lowestoft – 73,967. Yes 4. Suffolk Coastal – 76,677. Yes 5. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 73,113. Yes 6. Bury St Edmunds – 74,469. Yes 7. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 8. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 9. West Suffolk – 71,871. Yes 10. Diss – 70,893. Yes 11. South West Norfolk – 74,491. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 70,524. Yes 13. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 14. South East Norfolk – 71,690. Yes 15. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 16. Broadland – 72,619. Yes 17. North West Norfolk – 70,536. Yes A couple of additional points: 1) Anglian has comprehensively explained why carving up/abolishing Central Suffolk & North Ipswich and putting the residual bottom fragment of this constituency together with Stowmarket is a bad idea logistically due to the Kesgrave/Rushmere St Andrew wards problem it would create. It would also be highly unlikely to sit well with the minimum change remit of the boundary commission given the many other less disruptive options that are available. I find the arguments against this proposition to be compelling and soundly made. Sorry Islington. 2) A more tightly drawn Bury St Edmunds constituency based upon its core communities of Bury St Edmunds town itself and Stowmarket – with the removal of a few of its more northerly rural wards – looks good to me. This proposition causes minimal disruption to the established constituency of Bury St Edmunds and to other established surrounding constituencies including West Suffolk and Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. 3) A new Diss constituency would have good east to west connectivity via the A143 and north to south via the A140. It holds together well in terms of geography and connectivity, and in practical terms, it mops up excess electors in surrounding constituencies effectively and in a way that is most consistent with the minimum change principle. Like many of the constituencies in Suffolk and Norfolk, the Diss constituency would be a collection of villages and market towns. Its creation also helps address the potential issue of the northerly rural wards in Bury St Edmunds and Central Suffolk and North Ipswich respectively having rather less in common with the large towns of Bury and Ipswich themselves. 4) For comparative purposes, I set out below, what remains my preferred proposal for Norfolk and Suffolk. This is broadly similar to the one put forward by Pete Whitehead . Instead of putting West Suffolk wards into the new Diss constituency as per Anglian, it contains East Suffolk wards from Waveney and Suffolk Coastal instead. 1. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 2. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 3. Lowestoft – 70,418. Yes 4. Suffolk Coastal – 72,955. Yes 5. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 73,445. Yes 6. Bury St Edmunds – 75,655. Yes 7. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 8. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 9. West Suffolk – 76,243. Yes 10. Waveney Valley / Diss & North Suffolk – 71,372. Yes 11. South West Norfolk – 74,941. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 73,055. Yes 13. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 14. South East Norfolk – 75,147. Yes 15. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 16. Broadland – 72,619. Yes 17. North West Norfolk – 70,536. Yes
|
|
jbp79
Non-Aligned
Posts: 21
|
Post by jbp79 on Apr 20, 2021 8:23:27 GMT
I’ve revisited the idea of a border crossing at the Thetford Forest and I’ve come up with the following suggestion, which I think works quite well. This proposal would simplify the number of local authorities in each constituency, with a limit of two LA areas per seat. This would provide some simplicity and continuity for the seats in the proposal and mitigates some concerns others have raised about a disjointed mix of LAs in some constituencies. This proposal does entail slightly more change than some of my previous proposals, especially around the southern border of Norfolk. However, this is still close to minimal change and tidies up some of the previous issues with a somewhat strangely shaped South West Norfolk in my previous proposals. These boundaries also have a focus on communities and geographic boundaries, as well as providing good infrastructure links within the seats. 1. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 2. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 3. Lowestoft – 70,418. Yes 4. Suffolk Coastal – 72,955. Yes 5. Central Suffolk – 70,132. Yes 6. Bury St Edmunds – 75,954. Yes 7. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 8. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 9. West Suffolk – 71,871. Yes 10. Stowmarket & North Ipswich – 71,310. Yes 11. South West Norfolk – 72,190. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 76,836. Yes 13. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 14. South East Norfolk – 76,479. Yes 15. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 16. Broadland – 72,619. Yes 17. North West Norfolk – 70,536. Yes
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2021 0:08:46 GMT
Pretty happy with the proposals here. Exactly what I'd wanted in Hertfordshire. I'd have done different in the Luton area but its not terrible. They've gone for the cross Essex/Suffolk seat (Haverhill and Halstead) but it isn't at all bad
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2021 0:37:04 GMT
Three Rivers is a silly name - they should stick with SW Herts
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 9:03:08 GMT
Mildly surprised they haven't cared about the detached bit of Milton & Waterbeach ward, though in Cambridgeshire the main point of contention is definitely going to be Cherry Hinton.
The boundaries round Chelmsford are quite squiggly, but unfortunately I don't think the numbers aren't quite there to put Braintree and Witham together and get two seats out of rural Chelmsford, Maldon and rural southern Colchester.
And taking Tilbury out of Thurrock but leaving Chadwell St Mary is a bit odd, but those are fairly minor objections. Otherwise, it could definitely be worse.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 8, 2021 10:25:11 GMT
Interesting that they've kept Norfolk intact and paired Suffolk with Essex instead.
Edited to add: This has had bizarre consequences for Braintree.
|
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,247
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 8, 2021 11:30:33 GMT
My thoughts on each county's proposed constituencies:
Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire: All are perfectly sound given the criteria the BCE has to work with, and none of them should be changed in terms of boundaries, but the names need to be changed for several of them. Three Rivers should be changed to South West Hertfordshire, Hitchin should be changed to Hitchin & Stotfold (cross-county constituencies should always acknowledge both sides of the county border), Hertsmere should be changed to South Hertfordshire (it does not contain all of Hertsmere and contains a ward in Welwyn Hatfield), Broxbourne should be renamed South East Hertfordshire given how much of the new constituency is in the East Herts district, and Harpenden & Berkhamsted should be called Berkhamsted, Harpenden & Tring (Tring is twice the size of Berkhamsted).
Cambridgeshire: St Neots has much better links with Huntingdon than it does with South Cambridgeshire, and the fact that this is largely a replication of the SW Cambridgeshire constituency of 1983-97 does not alter that. Instead, St Neots should remain with Huntingdon via a Huntingdon and St Neots constituency, and the new constituency should be Mid Cambridgeshire (based around St Ives and villages to the north of the city of Cambridge). The redrawn South Cambridgeshire constituency should add Trumpington ward, not Cherry Hinton ward.
Essex/Suffolk: Clearly the BCE did not read the map properly before drawing the Suffolk constituencies in particular. There are no proper links of any kind between the three parts of North Suffolk; the links in Suffolk go north-south except along the coast in the east. There is no longer a Suffolk Coastal district so keeping the name makes no sense; Felixstowe & Woodbridge would be a better name. It shows that the Essex-Suffolk pairing is not a good pairing and that Suffolk is better paired with Norfolk. The Braintree seat is terrible; the rural wards in Chelmsford have nothing in common with Braintree although arguably a "Chelmsford Outer & Great Dunmow" seat, for example, would be little better. I am annoyed at Castle Point taking in West Leigh from Southend but sadly the BCE is not going to split Pitsea South East any time soon.
Norfolk: There has been more change to Norfolk's constituencies by treating it on its own rather than pairing it with Suffolk, as we have discussed before. Crossing the border at Diss might not be ideal but it does allow for the pairing to work without unnecessary change. Norwich North taking in Thorpe Hamlet ward is sadly inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2021 11:36:35 GMT
My thoughts on each county's proposed constituencies: Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire: All are perfectly sound given the criteria the BCE has to work with, and none of them should be changed in terms of boundaries, but the names need to be changed for several of them. Three Rivers should be changed to South West Hertfordshire, Hitchin should be changed to Hitchin & Stotfold (cross-county constituencies should always acknowledge both sides of the county border), Hertsmere should be changed to South Hertfordshire (it does not contain all of Hertsmere and contains a ward in Welwyn Hatfield), Broxbourne should be renamed South East Hertfordshire given how much of the new constituency is in the East Herts district, and Harpenden & Berkhamsted should be called Berkhamsted, Harpenden & Tring ( Tring is twice the size of Berkhamsted). No it isn't - it's smaller. Given your naming policy for the rest of the county, West Hertfordshire or North West Hertfordshire would be the more logical name for that seat
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 11:45:41 GMT
I've had a quick look at the numbers of electors moved in the three eastern counties. After realignment to ward boundaries, the initial proposals move 53117 electors in Norfolk and 304663 in Suffolk and Essex. Halstead and Haverhill counts as the new seat, Bury & Newmarket is the successor to West Suffolk and Bury's successor is technically North Suffolk (though it only contributes about 28000 electors.)
EDIT: 134482 electors moved in Cambridgeshire, with St Neots as the new seat. So there's definitely a possibility to make counter-proposals on the basis of moving fewer electors.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jun 8, 2021 13:33:17 GMT
Mildly surprised they haven't cared about the detached bit of Milton & Waterbeach ward, though in Cambridgeshire the main point of contention is definitely going to be Cherry Hinton. I'm more than mildly surprised. I'm absolutely astonished that, here or anywhere else, a constituency should be proposed with a detached part such as this. What puzzles me even more is that the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach Ward itself appears to be proposed to be split in two, the the southernmost section (including Cambridge North station) being shunted off to the South Cambridgeshire Constituency, creating yet another detached part! Because of the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach Ward, I was 100% certain that Milton & Waterbeach must be included in the same constituency as Fen Ditton & Fulbourn Ward. With the exception of the southermost slither of the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach, it appears that I was wrong, but I just don't understand what the BCE's thinking is here.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 8, 2021 13:35:12 GMT
What puzzles me even more is that the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach Ward itself appears to be proposed to be split in two, the the southernmost section (including Cambridge North station) being shunted off to the South Cambridgeshire Constituency, creating yet another detached part! As noted in a different thread, that appears to be an error on the PBCE mapping site.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 13:40:33 GMT
Mildly surprised they haven't cared about the detached bit of Milton & Waterbeach ward, though in Cambridgeshire the main point of contention is definitely going to be Cherry Hinton. I'm more than mildly surprised. I'm absolutely astonished that, here or anywhere else, a constituency should be proposed with a detached part such as this. What puzzles me even more is that the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach Ward itself appears to be proposed to be split in two, the the southernmost section (including Cambridge North station) being shunted off to the South Cambridgeshire Constituency, creating yet another detached part! Because of the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach Ward, I was 100% certain that Milton & Waterbeach must be included in the same constituency as Fen Ditton & Fulbourn Ward. With the exception of the southermost slither of the detached part of Milton & Waterbeach, it appears that I was wrong, but I just don't understand what the BCE's thinking is here. I don't really see the benefit of putting the detached bit in the same constituency as Fen Ditton & Fulbourn - there's still a river in the way and no bridges. If it goes anywhere, it ought to go into Cambridge (because that's the only area it has a road connection to) and there's no particular problem with splitting it, because nobody in Chesterton Fen accesses any services from Milton.
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jun 8, 2021 15:09:39 GMT
There is no longer a Suffolk Coastal district so keeping the name makes no sense; Felixstowe & Woodbridge would be a better name. It still is the coastal constituency for most of the county, though. Its infrastructure spine is the coastal road and rail routes. As for "Felixstowe & Woodbridge", that would both go down as a bucket of cold sick (and I say that as someone from Woodbridge!), but also would very poorly represent the nature of the constituency as a whole, focussing solely on one end of it.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 8, 2021 15:11:11 GMT
They should go back to the old name and call it Dunwich.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 8, 2021 15:14:54 GMT
There is no longer a Suffolk Coastal district so keeping the name makes no sense; Felixstowe & Woodbridge would be a better name. It still is the coastal constituency for most of the county, though. Its infrastructure spine is the coastal road and rail routes. As for "Felixstowe & Woodbridge", that would both go down as a bucket of cold sick (and I say that as someone from Woodbridge!), but also would very poorly represent the nature of the constituency as a whole, focussing solely on one end of it. East Suffolk, I suggest, to go with the use of compass-point names elsewhere in the county.
Naming issues aside, BCE's version of Suffolk is not bad at all.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 8, 2021 16:03:02 GMT
They should go back to the old name and call it Dunwich. You'd have wave after wave of complaints.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 8, 2021 16:15:15 GMT
They should go back to the old name and call it Dunwich. You'd have wave after wave of complaints. I'd just let them wash over me.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 8, 2021 16:44:42 GMT
Mildly surprised they haven't cared about the detached bit of Milton & Waterbeach ward, though in Cambridgeshire the main point of contention is definitely going to be Cherry Hinton. I'm more than mildly surprised. I'm absolutely astonished that, here or anywhere else, a constituency should be proposed with a detached part such as this. Why do some people get so animated over this? It doesn't matter. We used to have seats of multiple detached parts and it wasn't really a problem; in fact they often made a lot of sense.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Jun 8, 2021 19:32:42 GMT
A good point, well made about football teams - if you live in north Suffolk, say in Beccles or Bungay then you probably support Norwich City and if you live a little closer to Ipswich in Debenham or Needham Market then you support Ipswich Town. Ed Sheeran is a Framlingham resident and a big supporter of Ipswich Town. I still prefer the scheme I suggested earlier in the thread for Norfolk and Suffolk but can see merit in the anglian scheme which also suggests Diss as being the best place to cross the county boundary. Whilst I do not fully accept East Anglian Lefty 's concerns about Stowupland needing to be in the same constituency as Stowmarket, in the context of Anglian’s proposal, this change could present a more pleasing constituency structure. So I set out below a slightly modified proposal: 1. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 2. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 3. Lowestoft – 73,967. Yes 4. Suffolk Coastal – 76,677. Yes 5. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 73,113. Yes 6. Bury St Edmunds – 74,469. Yes 7. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 8. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 9. West Suffolk – 71,871. Yes 10. Diss – 70,893. Yes 11. South West Norfolk – 74,491. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 70,524. Yes 13. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 14. South East Norfolk – 71,690. Yes 15. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 16. Broadland – 72,619. Yes 17. North West Norfolk – 70,536. Yes A couple of additional points: 1) Anglian has comprehensively explained why carving up/abolishing Central Suffolk & North Ipswich and putting the residual bottom fragment of this constituency together with Stowmarket is a bad idea logistically due to the Kesgrave/Rushmere St Andrew wards problem it would create. It would also be highly unlikely to sit well with the minimum change remit of the boundary commission given the many other less disruptive options that are available. I find the arguments against this proposition to be compelling and soundly made. Sorry Islington. 2) A more tightly drawn Bury St Edmunds constituency based upon its core communities of Bury St Edmunds town itself and Stowmarket – with the removal of a few of its more northerly rural wards – looks good to me. This proposition causes minimal disruption to the established constituency of Bury St Edmunds and to other established surrounding constituencies including West Suffolk and Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. 3) A new Diss constituency would have good east to west connectivity via the A143 and north to south via the A140. It holds together well in terms of geography and connectivity, and in practical terms, it mops up excess electors in surrounding constituencies effectively and in a way that is most consistent with the minimum change principle. Like many of the constituencies in Suffolk and Norfolk, the Diss constituency would be a collection of villages and market towns. Its creation also helps address the potential issue of the northerly rural wards in Bury St Edmunds and Central Suffolk and North Ipswich respectively having rather less in common with the large towns of Bury and Ipswich themselves. 4) For comparative purposes, I set out below, what remains my preferred proposal for Norfolk and Suffolk. This is broadly similar to the one put forward by Pete Whitehead . Instead of putting West Suffolk wards into the new Diss constituency as per Anglian, it contains East Suffolk wards from Waveney and Suffolk Coastal instead. 1. Norwich South – 73,301. Yes 2. Norwich North – 71,729. Yes 3. Lowestoft – 70,418. Yes 4. Suffolk Coastal – 72,955. Yes 5. Central Suffolk & North Ipswich – 73,445. Yes 6. Bury St Edmunds – 75,655. Yes 7. Ipswich – 75,117. Yes 8. South Suffolk – 71,070. Yes 9. West Suffolk – 76,243. Yes 10. Waveney Valley / Diss & North Suffolk – 71,372. Yes 11. South West Norfolk – 74,941. Yes 12. Mid Norfolk – 73,055. Yes 13. Great Yarmouth – 70,077. Yes 14. South East Norfolk – 75,147. Yes 15. North Norfolk – 70,719. Yes 16. Broadland – 72,619. Yes 17. North West Norfolk – 70,536. Yes How well do you know the A140?
|
|