greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,209
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 22, 2022 15:57:19 GMT
I will speaking at the Cambridge hearing on the evening of 17 March.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 7, 2022 16:10:17 GMT
Reading through the counter-proposals from the various parties, starting with the Tories.
Bedfordshire
They propose Kempston Rural should go with Bedford, on the basis that it includes bit of Kempston proper. Partisan impacts are obvious.
They propose that Houghton Regis should go with Luton North, Luton South should lose the rural bits and Saints and Stopsley wards should both go in South. It'd make North a bit more marginal, but not enough for that to have been the sole objective.
Hertfordshire
Names aside, no changes proposed.
Cambridgeshire
They propose putting the three rural wards north of the Nene into 'Peterborough North' and putting West and Central into 'Peterborough South'. Not a very subtle gerrymander.
Otherwise they support the proposals.
Essex
Considered alone, rather than paired with Suffolk.
Swaps Tilbury for Chadwell St Mary, which is sensible.
Adds a rural polling district from Pitsea SE to Castle Point, meaning it can stay out of Southend. Amusingly they're now claiming that North Benfleet and South Benfleet have close links, when I'm fairly sure they rightly pointed out that was bollocks in their response to the 2010 review. Still a neat solution, though.
Southend West would then claim St Luke's ward. I'm surprised they didn't go with Milton, which I would think splits the Labour vote more effectively and looks neater.
Braintree loses its tail into Chelmsford district, though their alternative solution is very nearly as ugly - Brentwood & Ongar, Saffron Walden, Witham and Maldon all take bites out of it.
They're going for a split of Colchester, but in probably the dumbest way possible - not following the Colne nor the railway line and splitting Prettygate from Lexden. To do this they also have to put Brightlingsea with Clacton (lack of road links be damned) and split a ward in Tendring. An absolute trashfire of an idea, especially since neither of the last two things are necessary if you pick the right wards.
Norfolk and Suffolk
Paired, sensibly. They accept most of the proposals for Suffolk, but tidy things up in the west and have the cross-county constituency crossing around Diss.
For Norwich, they propose adding the Drayton wards to North rather than Old Costessey to South, meaning Thorpe Hamlet stays in South. Partisan implications are obvious, but they haven't made any real effort to justify it on the grounds of community links.
EDIT: Also, the written submission suggests splitting Weeley & Tendring ward, but it's not shown as split on their maps or their list of split wards. I suspect this may have been hurriedly rewritten at the last minute and not checked properly?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 7, 2022 16:27:40 GMT
I got halfway through the Green counter-proposal and gave up. On the principle that if you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all, we're on to the Labour submission:
Regions
They back the combination of Essex and Suffolk, I'm sorry to say.
Beds and Herts
Mainly supportive of the proposals. They express openness to counterproposals in Luton but don't make any of their own.
Cambs
Counter-proposal for Trumpington rather than Cherry Hinton to join South Cambridgeshire. Otherwise supportive of the proposals.
Essex and Suffolk
There seem to be a lot of comments here that could be accurately paraphrased as "although this constituency is obviously shit, we're going to support it anyway." A cynic would suggest that this is because they like the proposals for Colchester and don't want to endorse other changes in case they have knock-on consequences.
They do however suggest the Chadwell St Mary for Tilbury swap the Tories also proposed, so there must be a good chance of that happening.
Norfolk
Full support for the Initial Proposals.
I did email region offering to help out. It's a shame they didn't take me up on that.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 7, 2022 16:38:34 GMT
Finally, the Lib Dems:
Regions
They accept the commission proposals, on the basis Suffolk works as well with Essex as with Norfolk.
Beds and Herts
All Commission proposals supported.
Cambs
All Commission proposals supported. As with the Tory submission, they flag up the ridiculous city boundaries on the edge of Cherry Hinton to justify that being the ward going with South Cambridgeshire.
Essex
They propose (right at the end of the submission, for some reason) an alternative arrangement in Southend, with one ward split. Southend W adds Milton, Southend E is as the commission propose it and Castle Point adds either (they don't express a preference) a polling district from Pitsea SE or from Lodge ward in Rochford.
Norfolk
All Commission proposals supported.
I realise Colin Rosenstiel is no longer with us, but are the Lib Dems really so short of nerds these days? This is barely a response at all.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 7, 2022 17:34:56 GMT
Moving on to the other counter-proposals listed on the main page:
53858 - this one doesn't like Newmarket's status as a salient into Cambridgeshire and decides to 'fix' this by extending Bury St Edmunds into Norfolk, Haverhill & halstead into Cambridgeshire and Peterborough into Whittlesey. It's certainly an option...
56498 - this one is exercised about the detached bit of Milton & Waterbeach ward, but sadly isn't aware wardsplitting is an option. It also proposes an Ipswich E & Felixstowe arrangement (with Pinewood in the consequent Ipswich W seat) and a solution for Luton that keeps Stopsley in S.
57513 - this groups Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex together as a single region. Bedfordshire is as in the Tory counter-proposal. For Cambridge, it takes the novel solution of removing both Cherry Hinton and Trumpington, but adding Queen Edith's back in. The Suffolk-Norfolk constituency is Newmarket & Thetford.
63334 - treats Essex alone and combines Suffolk and Norfolk (with the crossing near Diss.) Seeks to move as few wards as possible.
69217 - only covers Suffolk and Norfolk (which it groups.) Doesn't appear to be a big fan of the concept of hinterlands, judging by the maps.
71343 - looks to be identical to 69217.
71444 - similar but not quite identical to the preceding two.
78259 - I don't know who did this, but they certainly sound credible...
79444 - A CSV file from somebody in Preston/
85205 - a counter-proposal for the region, only containing maps and table but no explanations. Some good ideas, others decidedly less good.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 7, 2022 17:53:13 GMT
Reading through the counter-proposals from the various parties, starting with the Tories. BedfordshireThey propose that Houghton Regis should go with Luton North, Luton South should lose the rural bits and Saints and Stopsley wards should both go in South. It'd make North a bit more marginal, but not enough for that to have been the sole objective. HertfordshireNames aside, no changes proposed. Same as the entirety of my submission for this region
|
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,209
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 8, 2022 22:58:15 GMT
I hope you have been able to find the few counter-proposals I made in this region, which were simply retain the link between Huntingdon and St Neots and make Mid Cambridgeshire the new Cambridgeshire constituency, and rearrange the Mid Suffolk-based constituency proposals as a (better connected) Stowmarket & Ipswich North and Framlingham respectively.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 9, 2022 10:57:38 GMT
25 responses from MPs here, including one from the late David Amess. Notable submissions: - Sarah Owen and Rachel Hopkins both propose that Stopsley should remain in Luton South, that Eaton Bray should remain in South West Bedfordshire and that Tithe Farm and Parkside should go into Luton North. Yes, this splits Houghton Regis and no, those two wards don't have a direct road link to Luton.
- Both Grant Shapps and Shailesh Vara propose ward splits to keep tiny villages in their constituency. Vara's is particularly absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 9, 2022 11:22:16 GMT
25 responses from MPs here, including one from the late David Amess. Notable submissions: - Sarah Owen and Rachel Hopkins both propose that Stopsley should remain in Luton South, that Eaton Bray should remain in South West Bedfordshire and that Tithe Farm and Parkside should go into Luton North. Yes, this splits Houghton Regis and no, those two wards don't have a direct road link to Luton.
- Both Grant Shapps and Shailesh Vara propose ward splits to keep tiny villages in their constituency. Vara's is particularly absurd.
I noticed a lot of other Luton residents had followed the Rachel Hopkins template. Bizarre to split Houghton Regis in that way rather than going the whole hog like mine and the Tories' plan does,. I presume Shapps wants to keep Newgate Street in his seat - seems fairly pointless as it has no direct road connections to the rest of the constituency (although its part of the weirdly shaped Hatfield parish). I guess splitting wards where this isn't necessary to keep a seat within quota is a no-no, otherwise I would have split Welsh Harp ward in Brent
|
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,209
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 9, 2022 22:53:41 GMT
25 responses from MPs here, including one from the late David Amess. Notable submissions: - Sarah Owen and Rachel Hopkins both propose that Stopsley should remain in Luton South, that Eaton Bray should remain in South West Bedfordshire and that Tithe Farm and Parkside should go into Luton North. Yes, this splits Houghton Regis and no, those two wards don't have a direct road link to Luton.
- Both Grant Shapps and Shailesh Vara propose ward splits to keep tiny villages in their constituency. Vara's is particularly absurd.
And why would it matter at all if those particular villages were moved into another constituency? It would make no significant difference psephologically or in terms of electorate figures and furthermore the constituency of Welwyn Hatfield is only being readjusted for new ward boundaries anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 14, 2022 18:53:08 GMT
I've only just got round to noticing the Conservative counter proposals in Colchester (even though East Anglian Lefty mentioned it upthread - I rather skimmed through some of those posts). It is hilariously bad even compared to the earlier incarnation of the Colchester North/South arrangements. You can't blame them for trying I suppose as the initial proposals are bad for them there (and this seems to be an inevitable consequence of the new ward boundaries, with some of their best areas in the town being mixed with rural areas) but I'm sure something better was possible - I'm not even sure their Colchester South will be that safe. It's a shame because treating Essex as a single sub-region would be an improvement overall and they spoil the chances of that by making such a meal of the detail. I might see if I can rework their plan somehow.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 14, 2022 20:35:09 GMT
I've only just got round to noticing the Conservative counter proposals in Colchester (even though East Anglian Lefty mentioned it upthread - I rather skimmed through some of those posts). It is hilariously bad even compared to the earlier incarnation of the Colchester North/South arrangements. You can't blame them for trying I suppose as the initial proposals are bad for them there (and this seems to be an inevitable consequence of the new ward boundaries, with some of their best areas in the town being mixed with rural areas) but I'm sure something better was possible - I'm not even sure their Colchester South will be that safe. It's a shame because treating Essex as a single sub-region would be an improvement overall and they spoil the chances of that by making such a meal of the detail. I might see if I can rework their plan somehow. There are at least 2 submissions that offer 18-seat schemes for Essex with Colchester identical to the Commissions's proposals. (and plenty of other viable options).
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 15, 2022 11:33:44 GMT
I've only just got round to noticing the Conservative counter proposals in Colchester (even though East Anglian Lefty mentioned it upthread - I rather skimmed through some of those posts). It is hilariously bad even compared to the earlier incarnation of the Colchester North/South arrangements. You can't blame them for trying I suppose as the initial proposals are bad for them there (and this seems to be an inevitable consequence of the new ward boundaries, with some of their best areas in the town being mixed with rural areas) but I'm sure something better was possible - I'm not even sure their Colchester South will be that safe. It's a shame because treating Essex as a single sub-region would be an improvement overall and they spoil the chances of that by making such a meal of the detail. I might see if I can rework their plan somehow. You could easily manage a decent east-west arrangement by modifying the Initial proposals, but trying to sneak Mersea in makes the numbers much trickier. I can see why they did it, because it's an extremely Tory ward, but I think they'd have been better off keeping Lexden and Prettygate together because a) they're an obvious pair and b) Lexden is nearly as Tory as Mersea.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 18, 2022 11:57:03 GMT
Given that elsewhere the Tories have been quite keen on splitting up any urban seat that seems remotely vulnerable, it strikes me as interesting that they've supported the initial proposals for Watford. A split option would be ugly, but no worse than their proposal for Coventry and much better than what they've gone for with Colchester. Any thoughts as to why?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,270
|
Post by YL on Feb 18, 2022 16:43:09 GMT
Given that elsewhere the Tories have been quite keen on splitting up any urban seat that seems remotely vulnerable, it strikes me as interesting that they've supported the initial proposals for Watford. A split option would be ugly, but no worse than their proposal for Coventry and much better than what they've gone for with Colchester. Any thoughts as to why? If you gerrymander everywhere it becomes too obvious?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,270
|
Post by YL on Feb 18, 2022 18:06:49 GMT
I wonder whether the actual answer is that the MP for Watford didn't suggest it.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,270
|
Post by YL on Feb 20, 2022 11:29:23 GMT
Cambridgeshire pitchfork watch: Yikes, there are a lot of comments in the Peterborough area for an area where only minimal change is proposed. A lot of them actually concern the Tory proposal mentioned by East Anglian Lefty to move the three rural wards in the Soke to Peterborough, renamed Peterborough North, and to move West and Central wards to NW Cambs, renamed Peterborough South. This proposal is not at all popular in either affected area; there are, though, quite a few comments supporting two constituencies with "Peterborough" in the name, especially from the built up areas south of the Nene. (Is there a reasonable alternative name for the proposed NW Cambs which includes the city name? "Peterborough South & Stilton" or something like that?) Shailesh Vara's proposed ward split gets a bit of support from the locals. There are quite a few comments from people who don't like the proposed new St. Neots constituency very much. Some of this is basically about the name (of the "we're nowhere near St. Neots" type) but especially in the built up areas close to Cambridge several representations want to be in a Cambridge constituency. There are a handful of explicit suggestions of two Cambridge constituencies. Meanwhile it's pretty clear that all three of Cherry Hinton, Queen Ediths and Trumpington want to be in Cambridge. Trumpington has the fewest representations but I suspect that's partly because it's the one which the BCE actually propose being in Cambridge, though I do think it actually has the weakest case.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,270
|
Post by YL on Feb 25, 2022 18:01:14 GMT
There are quite a few comments from people who don't like the proposed new St. Neots constituency very much. Some of this is basically about the name (of the "we're nowhere near St. Neots" type) but especially in the built up areas close to Cambridge several representations want to be in a Cambridge constituency. There are a handful of explicit suggestions of two Cambridge constituencies. Meanwhile it's pretty clear that all three of Cherry Hinton, Queen Ediths and Trumpington want to be in Cambridge. Trumpington has the fewest representations but I suspect that's partly because it's the one which the BCE actually propose being in Cambridge, though I do think it actually has the weakest case. I don't think Cambridge is quite large enough yet, even if you include all the urban spillover, for two Cambridge constituencies really to be a natural idea, but I had a play with the idea anyway: Cambridge "North" Includes the bulk of the actual city, plus the three wards to the north which contain urban spillover: Girton, Histon & Impington, Milton & Waterbeach. (I'm aware that there are areas in them which don't qualify as that.) Electorate 73819. Cambridge South & Sawston Includes the five southern wards of the city and some urban spillover on the south side, but extends past Sawston through more rural areas to the county boundary. Electorate 74208. Other versions are of course possible; e.g. you could draw the boundary roughly along the Cam, which allows the southern seat to extend no further than Sawston but the northern one then stretches along the A14/busway corridor as far as Swavesey. (Not something I'm going to propose, but maybe some Lib Dems or people who care very much about constituency boundaries carving through new developments might like it?)
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,271
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Feb 25, 2022 18:14:52 GMT
There are quite a few comments from people who don't like the proposed new St. Neots constituency very much. Some of this is basically about the name (of the "we're nowhere near St. Neots" type) but especially in the built up areas close to Cambridge several representations want to be in a Cambridge constituency. There are a handful of explicit suggestions of two Cambridge constituencies. Meanwhile it's pretty clear that all three of Cherry Hinton, Queen Ediths and Trumpington want to be in Cambridge. Trumpington has the fewest representations but I suspect that's partly because it's the one which the BCE actually propose being in Cambridge, though I do think it actually has the weakest case. I don't think Cambridge is quite large enough yet, even if you include all the urban spillover, for two Cambridge constituencies really to be a natural idea, but I had a play with the idea anyway: Cambridge "North" Includes the bulk of the actual city, plus the three wards to the north which contain urban spillover: Girton, Histon & Impington, Milton & Waterbeach. (I'm aware that there are areas in them which don't qualify as that.) Electorate 73819. Cambridge South & Sawston Includes the five southern wards of the city and some urban spillover on the south side, but extends past Sawston through more rural areas to the county boundary. Electorate 74208. Other versions are of course possible; e.g. you could draw the boundary roughly along the Cam, which allows the southern seat to extend no further than Sawston but the northern one then stretches along the A14/busway corridor as far as Swavesey. (Not something I'm going to propose, but maybe some Lib Dems or people who care very much about constituency boundaries carving through new developments might like it?) I was having a play with this the other day, and ended up with pretty much the wards you did for your two constituencies, but as a doughnut Cambridge Central and Cambridge Outer. I liked the versions of St Neots / East Cambridgeshire that were left more than what's currently on the table, and thought you could appeal that the only place this has been tried in practice - York - it's been popular and united areas more than it's divided them. A hopeless case or worth submitting?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,270
|
Post by YL on Feb 25, 2022 18:36:50 GMT
I was having a play with this the other day, and ended up with pretty much the wards you did for your two constituencies, but as a doughnut Cambridge Central and Cambridge Outer. I liked the versions of St Neots / East Cambridgeshire that were left more than what's currently on the table, and thought you could appeal that the only place this has been tried in practice - York - it's been popular and united areas more than it's divided them. A hopeless case or worth submitting? I already did submit something like that (see ref. 58939) but I didn't think it was what the people talking about two Cambridge seats mostly had in mind. (And I just used the name "South Cambridgeshire" rather than "Cambridge Outer", because so little of it is actually officially Cambridge.) Of course it doesn't solve the problem of constituency boundaries carving up new developments, but really that's a problem which needs to be fixed by sorting out the City boundary. I notice that this region's Preston spreadsheet, ref. 79444, has a "Cambridge Outer" constituency, with a more northerly arrangement.
|
|