|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 8, 2021 21:17:54 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,618
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 21:22:03 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. We should allocate our constituencies based on population rather than electorate - after all an MP represents all their constituents whether they can vote for them or not
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Jun 8, 2021 21:23:54 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. An Agreement of the People (1647): "That the people of England, being at this day very unequally distributed by Counties, Cities, and Boroughs for the election of their deputies in Parliament, ought to be more indifferently proportioned according to the number of the inhabitants".
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,673
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 8, 2021 23:22:35 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. Foreigners should no more be voting in UK elections than I should be voting in foreign elections. Britons controlling the governmental processes of other countries used to be called colonialism. Want a British vote? Become a British citizen.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 9, 2021 0:27:49 GMT
Would prefer St Neots to be Mid/Central Cambridgeshire to fit with the -shire names theme of the county and St Neots itself being in the far extremely of the constituency and my own preferred way of naming them after something more recognisable to others not from the area, and fair to those within it. Boring as shire names are, it prevents people from every Little Pidding and the Wealds complaining their town hasn’t been named.
It does seem odd that Trumpington is still in Cambridge yet Queen Edith is now joined by Cherry Hinton as being outside it. I would do it the other way round. Trumpington has a very village like feel with some greenery and separation from the city whereas QE is pretty much contiguous, contains the main hospital and a college. Cherry Hinton even has a bit of green buffer so I can understand it’s removal. I would personally put QE back in and have Trumpington/CH in SCambs if numbers allow.
Which of the new ones would Matt Hancock stand in next time, if he even stands again (post inquiry!) that is. West Suffolk appears to be split exactly in half? One into a well known Bury StE and Newmarket, the other Haverhill and Halsted (never heard of either). I guess on paper he’d be safe as houses in either of them, but could expect a substantial reduction in majority if he comes out badly in the inquiry and if Labour works hard there. After all Bury StE was down to a 3 figure Tory majority in 97 wasn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by monksfield on Jun 9, 2021 6:46:42 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. Foreigners should no more be voting in UK elections than I should be voting in foreign elections. Britons controlling the governmental processes of other countries used to be called colonialism. Want a British vote? Become a British citizen. No taxation without representation. Settled status should be sufficient to vote in my view.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 9, 2021 7:04:37 GMT
Would prefer St Neots to be Mid/Central Cambridgeshire to fit with the -shire names theme of the county and St Neots itself being in the far extremely of the constituency and my own preferred way of naming them after something more recognisable to others not from the area, and fair to those within it. Boring as shire names are, it prevents people from every Little Pidding and the Wealds complaining their town hasn’t been named. It does seem odd that Trumpington is still in Cambridge yet Queen Edith is now joined by Cherry Hinton as being outside it. I would do it the other way round. Trumpington has a very village like feel with some greenery and separation from the city whereas QE is pretty much contiguous, contains the main hospital and a college. Cherry Hinton even has a bit of green buffer so I can understand it’s removal. I would personally put QE back in and have Trumpington/CH in SCambs if numbers allow. Which of the new ones would Matt Hancock stand in next time, if he even stands again (post inquiry!) that is. West Suffolk appears to be split exactly in half? One into a well known Bury StE and Newmarket, the other Haverhill and Halsted (never heard of either). I guess on paper he’d be safe as houses in either of them, but could expect a substantial reduction in majority if he comes out badly in the inquiry and if Labour works hard there. After all Bury StE was down to a 3 figure Tory majority in 97 wasn’t it? The logic of the BCE seems to be that the eastern end of Cherry Hinton is actually in Fen Ditton & Fulbourn ward, so the entirety might as well go with it. Which isn't an entirely daft argument, but there isn't really any obvious sign of the Coleridge/Cherry Hinton boundary on the ground and it's been like that for decades without causing any notable problems. The argument that Trumpington is closely tied to the centre is much weaker. They argue that the northern bit of the ward is a short walk from the centre. Which is much less true than it was under the old boundaries and in any case 90%+ of the electorate lives south of Long Road (and those living north of it don't walk anywhere when there's a chance to drive a ridiculous 4x4 instead.) Traditionally the local CLP puts together a sizeable petition in favour of keeping Cherry Hinton in Cambridge and I would expect that to be replicated this time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems do similarly - the Tory base vote in Trumpington is perhaps a little higher than in Cherry Hinton these days, but their ceiling is much lower than it was a decade ago and the Labour vote in Trumpington is probably easier for them to squeeze than the one in Cherry Hinton.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 9, 2021 8:47:56 GMT
Would prefer St Neots to be Mid/Central Cambridgeshire to fit with the -shire names theme of the county and St Neots itself being in the far extremely of the constituency and my own preferred way of naming them after something more recognisable to others not from the area, and fair to those within it. Boring as shire names are, it prevents people from every Little Pidding and the Wealds complaining their town hasn’t been named. It does seem odd that Trumpington is still in Cambridge yet Queen Edith is now joined by Cherry Hinton as being outside it. I would do it the other way round. Trumpington has a very village like feel with some greenery and separation from the city whereas QE is pretty much contiguous, contains the main hospital and a college. Cherry Hinton even has a bit of green buffer so I can understand it’s removal. I would personally put QE back in and have Trumpington/CH in SCambs if numbers allow. Which of the new ones would Matt Hancock stand in next time, if he even stands again (post inquiry!) that is. West Suffolk appears to be split exactly in half? One into a well known Bury StE and Newmarket, the other Haverhill and Halsted (never heard of either). I guess on paper he’d be safe as houses in either of them, but could expect a substantial reduction in majority if he comes out badly in the inquiry and if Labour works hard there. After all Bury StE was down to a 3 figure Tory majority in 97 wasn’t it? The logic of the BCE seems to be that the eastern end of Cherry Hinton is actually in Fen Ditton & Fulbourn ward, so the entirety might as well go with it. Which isn't an entirely daft argument, but there isn't really any obvious sign of the Coleridge/Cherry Hinton boundary on the ground and it's been like that for decades without causing any notable problems. The argument that Trumpington is closely tied to the centre is much weaker. They argue that the northern bit of the ward is a short walk from the centre. Which is much less true than it was under the old boundaries and in any case 90%+ of the electorate lives south of Long Road (and those living north of it don't walk anywhere when there's a chance to drive a ridiculous 4x4 instead.) Traditionally the local CLP puts together a sizeable petition in favour of keeping Cherry Hinton in Cambridge and I would expect that to be replicated this time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems do similarly - the Tory base vote in Trumpington is perhaps a little higher than in Cherry Hinton these days, but their ceiling is much lower than it was a decade ago and the Labour vote in Trumpington is probably easier for them to squeeze than the one in Cherry Hinton. The Coleridge/Cherry Hinton boundary used to be quite distinct (certainly well into the 1990s - not sure when the ward boundaries were changed) - Cherry Hinton Hall's grounds divided the wards. However a subsequent change moved that division to the bottom of Birdwood Road taking the Walpole Road and St Bede's Crescent area into Cherry Hinton and leaving an arbitrary boundary.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 9, 2021 8:50:59 GMT
Would prefer St Neots to be Mid/Central Cambridgeshire to fit with the -shire names theme of the county and St Neots itself being in the far extremely of the constituency and my own preferred way of naming them after something more recognisable to others not from the area, and fair to those within it. Boring as shire names are, it prevents people from every Little Pidding and the Wealds complaining their town hasn’t been named. It does seem odd that Trumpington is still in Cambridge yet Queen Edith is now joined by Cherry Hinton as being outside it. I would do it the other way round. Trumpington has a very village like feel with some greenery and separation from the city whereas QE is pretty much contiguous, contains the main hospital and a college. Cherry Hinton even has a bit of green buffer so I can understand it’s removal. I would personally put QE back in and have Trumpington/CH in SCambs if numbers allow. Which of the new ones would Matt Hancock stand in next time, if he even stands again (post inquiry!) that is. West Suffolk appears to be split exactly in half? One into a well known Bury StE and Newmarket, the other Haverhill and Halsted (never heard of either). I guess on paper he’d be safe as houses in either of them, but could expect a substantial reduction in majority if he comes out badly in the inquiry and if Labour works hard there. After all Bury StE was down to a 3 figure Tory majority in 97 wasn’t it? These are interesting points on basic principle and because I know the area. I much prefer a place name to an area name, so a 'St Neots' to a 'Mid-Cambs' and in general dislike any 'Mid-County' name as it betrays a lack of imagination and a weakness of resolve to face down criticism over the choice of place name. And just the one place name and never a group unless thought to be essential for a positive identification. I take the essence of your points about those peripheral areas of Cambridge and don't think it matters at all. Decide on basis of making the numbers work best. And on the effects of structure and numbers in contiguous seats. Never be in any way prissy as to distance, green strips or arcane minor thoughts on how a very small minority of nerds may react. Decide on getting the balance right and the numbers equal. In essence 'nothing' else matters at all. A 'BSE & Newmarket' is by far the better choice of seat to 'Haverhill & Halstead', as the latter could be more subject to possible demographic change. BSE is not going to be won by Labour or the Greens under any likely scenario. And Hancock is under no threat at all whatever happens. There was no perfect solution to anything except with 20-20 hindsight vision and the sensible people of that area are not going to vote Labour because they 'have issues' with past government Covid policy.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 9, 2021 9:31:32 GMT
If there's widespread demographic change (and it's vanishingly unlikely there would be in either case), the Bury and Newmarket seat is much more likely to see it. The seat is centred on both the A11 and A14 corridors and a lot of the new housing in the past 20 years is occupied by people who have moved out of Cambridge, especially round Mildenhall. A lot of people commute by train from Newmarket to Cambridge and a smaller but non-negligible number do from Bury. There are also a fair number of businesses in the seat which are part of the life sciences cluster centred on Addenbrookes and Cambridge uni.
Haverhill has some Cambridge commuters, but because transport links are rubbish they tend to be much more Tory-inclined, whereas there's absolutely no likelihood of any demographic change round Halstead, because nothing ever happens there.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 9, 2021 9:45:02 GMT
Would prefer St Neots to be Mid/Central Cambridgeshire to fit with the -shire names theme of the county and St Neots itself being in the far extremely of the constituency and my own preferred way of naming them after something more recognisable to others not from the area, and fair to those within it. Boring as shire names are, it prevents people from every Little Pidding and the Wealds complaining their town hasn’t been named. It does seem odd that Trumpington is still in Cambridge yet Queen Edith is now joined by Cherry Hinton as being outside it. I would do it the other way round. Trumpington has a very village like feel with some greenery and separation from the city whereas QE is pretty much contiguous, contains the main hospital and a college. Cherry Hinton even has a bit of green buffer so I can understand it’s removal. I would personally put QE back in and have Trumpington/CH in SCambs if numbers allow. Which of the new ones would Matt Hancock stand in next time, if he even stands again (post inquiry!) that is. West Suffolk appears to be split exactly in half? One into a well known Bury StE and Newmarket, the other Haverhill and Halsted (never heard of either). I guess on paper he’d be safe as houses in either of them, but could expect a substantial reduction in majority if he comes out badly in the inquiry and if Labour works hard there. After all Bury StE was down to a 3 figure Tory majority in 97 wasn’t it? He likes the racing industry so I would imagine Newmarket would suit him.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 9, 2021 9:47:46 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. Foreigners should no more be voting in UK elections than I should be voting in foreign elections. Britons controlling the governmental processes of other countries used to be called colonialism. Want a British vote? Become a British citizen. No more votes in local elections for Commonwealth and EU citizens then, no votes for Commonwealth citizens in general elections, no votes for Irish passport holders at all - that will really work in NI, no votes for those without a British passport - a sizeable percentage of the UK adult population, remember Windrush?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,675
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 9, 2021 12:54:06 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. Foreigners should no more be voting in UK elections than I should be voting in foreign elections. Britons controlling the governmental processes of other countries used to be called colonialism. Want a British vote? Become a British citizen. Though this isn't even about "voting" per se, simply using total adult population rather than just registered electors to determine constituencies. There are arguments both ways, but several countries use the former.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 9, 2021 13:10:17 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. I tend to agree with the "no taxation without representation" argument, though I'm also sympathetic to there being a minimum length of residency requirement - 2 years, perhaps. Under-registration is the elephant in the room when it comes to these boundary reviews. All the talk of fairness, but fairness requires accurate data which we don't have. We used to have pretty complete registers but the situation has got worse and worse since the Poll Tax controversy. One of several examples of the Tories benefiting electorally from one of their cockups. Then of course there's the student problem - how many students are counted twice in the data we're using?
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 16,933
|
Post by right on Jun 9, 2021 14:02:23 GMT
I look at these maps with incredulity with each passing review. A bundle of villages with no main town can generate sufficient electors to justify a constituency. Meanwhile some urban areas with mile after mile of housing only generate sufficient electors for one constituency. This just demonstrates the massive under registration in urban areas and the extent to which not allowing EU voters to vote in general elections discriminates against urban areas having truly proportionate representation in Parliament. I tend to agree with the "no taxation without representation" argument, though I'm also sympathetic to there being a minimum length of residency requirement - 2 years, perhaps. Under-registration is the elephant in the room when it comes to these boundary reviews. All the talk of fairness, but fairness requires accurate data which we don't have. We used to have pretty complete registers but the situation has got worse and worse since the Poll Tax controversy. One of several examples of the Tories benefiting electorally from one of their cockups. Then of course there's the student problem - how many students are counted twice in the data we're using? And how many students vote twice? Only allowing students to be registered at one address (preferably parents) is something that needs to be brought forward rather than this photo ID nonsense. Even if no students vote twice, the effect it has on boundaries means that there is an underrepresentation of poorer seats.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,673
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 9, 2021 14:10:02 GMT
Foreigners should no more be voting in UK elections than I should be voting in foreign elections. Britons controlling the governmental processes of other countries used to be called colonialism. Want a British vote? Become a British citizen. Though this isn't even about "voting" per se, simply using total adult population rather than just registered electors to determine constituencies. There are arguments both ways, but several countries use the former. I'd support population-based reviews, if it was based on the UK citizenship population of the immediately preceeding census, and the census neccessarily included a "What is your nationality" question. I did a study on the Sheffield 2011 electorate vs the Sheffield 2011 census and found that over the city there would be almost no change, just 500,000/84 instead of 400,000/84, so supporting using electorate figures as a good proxy for population figures. With wards of 15,000 the main differences would be streets on boundaries between wards. Though out of 28 wards two noticably diverged significantly, Central had a throeritcal under-registration of 11% and Fulwood an over-registration of 14%, compare to the average.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,618
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 9, 2021 22:24:43 GMT
I tend to agree with the "no taxation without representation" argument, though I'm also sympathetic to there being a minimum length of residency requirement - 2 years, perhaps. Under-registration is the elephant in the room when it comes to these boundary reviews. All the talk of fairness, but fairness requires accurate data which we don't have. We used to have pretty complete registers but the situation has got worse and worse since the Poll Tax controversy. One of several examples of the Tories benefiting electorally from one of their cockups. Then of course there's the student problem - how many students are counted twice in the data we're using? And how many students vote twice? Only allowing students to be registered at one address (preferably parents) is something that needs to be brought forward rather than this photo ID nonsense. Even if no students vote twice, the effect it has on boundaries means that there is an underrepresentation of poorer seats. Impressively wrong on every count
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 10, 2021 4:34:59 GMT
And how many students vote twice? Only allowing students to be registered at one address (preferably parents) is something that needs to be brought forward rather than this photo ID nonsense. Even if no students vote twice, the effect it has on boundaries means that there is an underrepresentation of poorer seats. Impressively wrong on every count not on the last one actually - students doubly registered at uni and in their parents' posh suburb does contribute to underrepresentation of poorer seats. Meanwhile, in the boundary report it says "the existing South Suffolk is unchanged except to realign with local government boundary changes". It's actually unchanged except for the removal of the two remaining W Suffolk wards in it.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,341
|
Post by YL on Jun 10, 2021 5:53:01 GMT
Typical students spend more than half the year at their university address and contribute massively to the economy there. The idea that they should be banned from registering there is absurd.
I’m open to the idea of saying they should only register there, but I don’t like singling them out: after all anyone who spends a significant time in two different places is allowed to register in both, and that includes students, who are human too.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 10, 2021 6:03:30 GMT
Impressively wrong on every count not on the last one actually - students doubly registered at uni and in their parents' posh suburb does contribute to underrepresentation of poorer seats. Meanwhile, in the boundary report it says "the existing South Suffolk is unchanged except to realign with local government boundary changes". It's actually unchanged except for the removal of the two remaining W Suffolk wards in it. It says the same thing about St Albans which likewise loses its Three Rivers element (although it's semi-true as the ward boundary changes mean that the element which is currently in St Albans forms the minority of two wards which are primarily in Watford - still I wouldn't have put it quite like that)
|
|