|
Post by mattb on Jun 10, 2021 6:14:36 GMT
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) Isn't the same true for S.Suffolk? - both the W.Suffolk wards are split and i think only a minority currently in S.Suffolk.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 10, 2021 6:42:23 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. Poorer seats tend to be urban and pretty much all universities are located in urban areas, so I'm not sure the distributional impact is that large. If anything it helps poorer seats relative to one letting students register at their original home address.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 10, 2021 7:20:03 GMT
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) Isn't the same true for S.Suffolk? - both the W.Suffolk wards are split and i think only a minority currently in S.Suffolk. I hadn't looked but that makes sense. Because if on Boundary Assistant you use the 'current constituency' function for St Albans the 'current constituency' excludes any part of Three Rivers and South Suffolk excludes any part of West Suffolk. You would think it would make more sense to say it is unchanged except for the removal of some element of Three Rivers/West Suffolk
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 16,886
|
Post by right on Jun 10, 2021 7:44:11 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. And fine, ban double registration. I suspect that the effect is not as concentrated with second home owners - but again it does boost the representation of richer areas over poorer areas.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,515
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 10, 2021 8:28:53 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. 1) not all students are from "posh suburbs" 2) if you were to single register students it would be at their parents house so the "extra" registration is in uni cities which include a lot of reasonably poor cities - Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Cardiff to name just a few
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 10, 2021 12:44:25 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.Dangerously woke sentiments there, which risk your getting a visit from the culture war police
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 16,886
|
Post by right on Jun 10, 2021 13:05:02 GMT
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. 1) not all students are from "posh suburbs" 2) if you were to single register students it would be at their parents house so the "extra" registration is in uni cities which include a lot of reasonably poor cities - Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Cardiff to name just a few Disproportionate doesn't have to be the same as all.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 16,886
|
Post by right on Jun 11, 2021 7:32:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 11, 2021 20:53:05 GMT
The article fails to mention James Cartlidge and implies that Tom Hunt holds both Ipswich and South Suffolk, which cannot possibly be true because no one can be an MP for more than one constituency in the UK. If the BCE insists on sticking with its plan to pair Essex and Suffolk, then we can at least scrap the dreadful North Suffolk proposed constituency. Here is how I would do it: rearrange Ipswich North & Stowmarket so that it simply becomes Stowmarket, taking in most of the current Bury St Edmunds constituency (but not Bury St Edmunds itself of course, which should remain part of the proposed Bury St Edmunds & Newmarket constituency) and not the three Ipswich wards of Castle Hill, Whitehouse and Whitton. Those instead should go into Ipswich West, a successor of Ipswich, with three eastern Ipswich wards (Rushmere, St John's and Bixley) going into Ipswich East & Felixstowe. The remaining Mid Suffolk wards, and East Suffolk wards not in the proposed Lowestoft constituency, form Suffolk Coastal's succesor, Framlingham (in the middle of the constituency and its largest town, although only just), the "new" seat in this alternative plan.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 16,886
|
Post by right on Jun 11, 2021 21:04:30 GMT
The article fails to mention James Cartlidge and implies that Tom Hunt holds both Ipswich and South Suffolk, which cannot possibly be true because no one can be an MP for more than one constituency in the UK. If the BCE insists on sticking with its plan to pair Essex and Suffolk, then we can at least scrap the dreadful North Suffolk proposed constituency. Here is how I would do it: rearrange Ipswich North & Stowmarket so that it simply becomes Stowmarket, taking in most of the current Bury St Edmunds constituency (but not Bury St Edmunds itself of course, which should remain part of the proposed Bury St Edmunds & Newmarket constituency) and not the three Ipswich wards of Castle Hill, Whitehouse and Whitton. Those instead should go into Ipswich West, a successor of Ipswich, with three eastern Ipswich wards (Rushmere, St John's and Bixley) going into Ipswich East & Felixstowe. The remaining Mid Suffolk wards, and East Suffolk wards not in the proposed Lowestoft constituency, form Suffolk Coastal's succesor, Framlingham (in the middle of the constituency and its largest town, although only just), the "new" seat in this alternative plan. Ipswich and South Suffolk are probably not mentioned because they only have tiny changes.
|
|
|
Post by newsouthender on Jun 13, 2021 9:13:20 GMT
Not that I think the BCE would countenance an orphan polling district for a minute, but moving the Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet parish from Pitsea SE into Castle Point would allow a vastly more sensible plan in Southend. It looks like the only change needed would be to move Milton from East to West. This would avoid having Eastwood Park in Southend East as well as keeping Leigh-on-Sea together.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 7, 2021 10:43:54 GMT
Submitted response to 2023 review in this region.
The only alternative constituency arrangements I have suggested, especially given the details of the BCE report which makes it clear about which alternative arrangements they will not consider (e.g. Ipswich West/Ipswich East & Felixstowe) are replacing Huntingdon and St Neots with Huntingdon & St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and substituting Stowmarket & Ipswich North and Framlingham for Ipswich North & Stowmarket and North Suffolk, although name changes are needed for some of the constituencies whose boundaries I otherwise support, albeit reluctantly.
As awkward as the Essex proposed constituencies are, I have not been able to find viable alternatives that I believe the BCE will accept (a Vale of Chelmsford seat is not viable due to lack of interconnectivity, and a Chelmsford North/Chelmsford South arrangement would be tantamount to gerrymandering).
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 7, 2021 10:46:35 GMT
Not that I think the BCE would countenance an orphan polling district for a minute, but moving the Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet parish from Pitsea SE into Castle Point would allow a vastly more sensible plan in Southend. It looks like the only change needed would be to move Milton from East to West. This would avoid having Eastwood Park in Southend East as well as keeping Leigh-on-Sea together. I considered this as well, but the BCE has already made it clear it will not countenance that, citing no proper links between Pitsea South East and the borough of Castle Point.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,384
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 7, 2021 10:58:55 GMT
Submitted response to 2023 review in this region. The only alternative constituency arrangements I have suggested, especially given the details of the BCE report which makes it clear about which alternative arrangements they will not consider (e.g. Ipswich West/Ipswich East & Felixstowe) are replacing Huntingdon and St Neots with Huntingdon & St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and substituting Stowmarket & Ipswich North and Framlingham for Ipswich North & Stowmarket and North Suffolk, although name changes are needed for some of the constituencies whose boundaries I otherwise support, albeit reluctantly. As awkward as the Essex proposed constituencies are, I have not been able to find viable alternatives that I believe the BCE will accept (a Vale of Chelmsford seat is not viable due to lack of interconnectivity, and a Chelmsford North/Chelmsford South arrangement would be tantamount to gerrymandering). Why does 'interconnectivity' matter to you and indeed to any elector? How could your view of this defect be said to make such a proposed constituency 'not viable'? Viable means 'capable of supporting life'! Even taking it on the ignorant common usage that 'it could not pssibly work', give your reasons for why the average intelligent voter 'could not make it work' for them. Your proposed name changes are poorly set out, but in so far as I can follow them at all, they seem to be very cumbersome and in most cases far worse than those of the commission.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 7, 2021 11:08:17 GMT
What on earth is 'the Vale of Chelmsford'? That bit of Essex is not known for its valleys and there's no River Chelmsford.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 7, 2021 11:10:24 GMT
What on earth is 'the Vale of Chelmsford'? That bit of Essex is not known for its valleys and there's no River Chelmsford. Basically, the part of Chelmsford DC that is not in the city of Chelmsford itself, including South Woodham Ferrers and villages like Writtle.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 7, 2021 11:13:03 GMT
That's not a valley, it's not even all in one catchment area.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 7, 2021 20:42:52 GMT
Submitted response to 2023 review in this region. The only alternative constituency arrangements I have suggested, especially given the details of the BCE report which makes it clear about which alternative arrangements they will not consider (e.g. Ipswich West/Ipswich East & Felixstowe) are replacing Huntingdon and St Neots with Huntingdon & St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and substituting Stowmarket & Ipswich North and Framlingham for Ipswich North & Stowmarket and North Suffolk, although name changes are needed for some of the constituencies whose boundaries I otherwise support, albeit reluctantly. As awkward as the Essex proposed constituencies are, I have not been able to find viable alternatives that I believe the BCE will accept (a Vale of Chelmsford seat is not viable due to lack of interconnectivity, and a Chelmsford North/Chelmsford South arrangement would be tantamount to gerrymandering). Why don’t they want Ipswich East and Felixstowe?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 7, 2021 20:46:10 GMT
Submitted response to 2023 review in this region. The only alternative constituency arrangements I have suggested, especially given the details of the BCE report which makes it clear about which alternative arrangements they will not consider (e.g. Ipswich West/Ipswich East & Felixstowe) are replacing Huntingdon and St Neots with Huntingdon & St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and substituting Stowmarket & Ipswich North and Framlingham for Ipswich North & Stowmarket and North Suffolk, although name changes are needed for some of the constituencies whose boundaries I otherwise support, albeit reluctantly. As awkward as the Essex proposed constituencies are, I have not been able to find viable alternatives that I believe the BCE will accept (a Vale of Chelmsford seat is not viable due to lack of interconnectivity, and a Chelmsford North/Chelmsford South arrangement would be tantamount to gerrymandering). Why don’t they want Ipswich East and Felixstowe? The BCE claimed that it would result in unnecessarily large changes to the Ipswich and Central Suffolk & Ipswich North constituencies.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 9, 2021 20:12:05 GMT
Submitted response to 2023 review in this region. The only alternative constituency arrangements I have suggested, especially given the details of the BCE report which makes it clear about which alternative arrangements they will not consider (e.g. Ipswich West/Ipswich East & Felixstowe) are replacing Huntingdon and St Neots with Huntingdon & St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and substituting Stowmarket & Ipswich North and Framlingham for Ipswich North & Stowmarket and North Suffolk, although name changes are needed for some of the constituencies whose boundaries I otherwise support, albeit reluctantly. As awkward as the Essex proposed constituencies are, I have not been able to find viable alternatives that I believe the BCE will accept (a Vale of Chelmsford seat is not viable due to lack of interconnectivity, and a Chelmsford North/Chelmsford South arrangement would be tantamount to gerrymandering). Why does 'interconnectivity' matter to you and indeed to any elector? How could your view of this defect be said to make such a proposed constituency 'not viable'? Viable means 'capable of supporting life'! Even taking it on the ignorant common usage that 'it could not pssibly work', give your reasons for why the average intelligent voter 'could not make it work' for them. Your proposed name changes are poorly set out, but in so far as I can follow them at all, they seem to be very cumbersome and in most cases far worse than those of the commission. It is a well known fact that once elected an MP is only allowed to leave their constituency to go directly to Westminster and back. Having to drive cycle or walk out of one bit of the constituency to get to another is therefore unconscionable.
|
|