Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 23, 2022 10:03:03 GMT
The Greens in the East of England are grumbling about a proposed constituency that straddles the Norfolk / Suffolk border in isolation, when I know (just like everyone here) if you want to grumble about one constituency then you have to make sure that all the admendments fit into the grand scheme of things. Has anyone else in the East of England seen people grumble about a single constituency in this way?
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,634
|
Post by ricmk on Mar 23, 2022 10:54:57 GMT
The main downside of your map from our point of view is the division of Leigh-on-Sea (which also creates an unnecessary second crossing of the Southend Unitary boundary). This was the one area in Essex for which we made a counter-proposal in the initial consultation. There are also a large number of other responses opposing the division of Leigh. We recognise that the proposal to have the cross-county seat Suffolk-Norfolk instead of Suffolk-Essex enables better maintenance of existing ties and moves significantly fewer electors between constituencies. So we have to at least consider the possibility that the Commission might be persuaded to adopt this. In that case, we want to show that it is both possible and desirable to retain the core of the town of Colchester in a single constituency and to avoid the mangling of Chelmsford district proposed by the Tories - while at the same time further improving community ties and further reducing the number of electors moved between constituencies. Of course there are some compromises - but overall our scheme meets the requirements of Rule 5 better than the Conservative plan and better than the Commission's initial proposals. Well, the heart of Leigh - both the old town in the High Street area and the modern area along the Broadway - is in Leigh ward, and West Leigh ward is more in the nature of urban sprawl between Leigh and Hadleigh. Ideally, it goes better with Leigh, but it's not as if separating it amounted to cutting Leigh in half. I don't think keeping W Leigh with Leigh is enough to justify a ward split, especially one that breaches the BCE guidance.
But a bigger worry is that an 18-seat Essex doesn't work all that well overall - even if you fiddle with wards in Southend, you still have the Clacton/Harwich problem. So it's understandable that the BCE chose to cross the Suffolk/Essex boundary, thus relieving the pressure on numbers. And on the whole, since in effect the choice is between a 9-seat Norfolk and an 18-seat Essex, I'd say the BCE's 9-seat Norfolk works better than any 18-seat Essex plan.
The other issue is that it is very late in the process to introduce such a sweeping proposal affecting more than half the region. I've noticed that this has happened in other regions as well - a political party has, in effect, reserved its position at the initial stage only to come up with far-reaching proposals later on. The problem with this is that other parties, and the general public, are then left with very little time to analyse the proposal and provide considered criticism.
As someone else working up a proposal involving a Norfolk-Suffolk pairing I'm worried about this, especially as my cross-border seat isn't one in many other proposals (I think the 'Diss Country' seats are dire and 'Newmarket and Thetford' makes much more sense uniting RAF, horse-riding and forest country along the A11.) But there is no statutory rule about accepting late proposals, due to consultation issues, and so if you can evidence that your proposals are better fits side by side, then they shouldn't be discriminated against. I guess the worry is if they don't take them seriously in hope of an easy life. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 24, 2022 11:50:58 GMT
Well, the heart of Leigh - both the old town in the High Street area and the modern area along the Broadway - is in Leigh ward, and West Leigh ward is more in the nature of urban sprawl between Leigh and Hadleigh. Ideally, it goes better with Leigh, but it's not as if separating it amounted to cutting Leigh in half. I don't think keeping W Leigh with Leigh is enough to justify a ward split, especially one that breaches the BCE guidance. But a bigger worry is that an 18-seat Essex doesn't work all that well overall - even if you fiddle with wards in Southend, you still have the Clacton/Harwich problem. So it's understandable that the BCE chose to cross the Suffolk/Essex boundary, thus relieving the pressure on numbers. And on the whole, since in effect the choice is between a 9-seat Norfolk and an 18-seat Essex, I'd say the BCE's 9-seat Norfolk works better than any 18-seat Essex plan.
The other issue is that it is very late in the process to introduce such a sweeping proposal affecting more than half the region. I've noticed that this has happened in other regions as well - a political party has, in effect, reserved its position at the initial stage only to come up with far-reaching proposals later on. The problem with this is that other parties, and the general public, are then left with very little time to analyse the proposal and provide considered criticism.
, the fallback (as discussed in our submission at the initial stage) is to take a whole ward from Rayleigh to make up the numbers in Castle Point. That is clearly sub-optimal, but is it less bad than crossing the County Council boundary and dividing Leigh. (there is no knock-on impact because both Basildon S / East Thurrock and Rayleigh & Wickford remain in quota if you do that, leaving both Southend seats intact as we propose). The substantial number of responses to the initial consultation (as well as contributions at the Southend hearings this week) against dividing Leigh suggests this is not an arcane point. On the wider point - (2) I don't think it is unreasonable for anyone to review their position in light of the responses at the initial stage. Especially if, as in this case, a counter-proposal is made which technically works better against the statutory criteria; but which in our view is unacceptable in places. Our counter-proposal in fact demonstrates an improvement against each aspect of Rule 5 when compared against the Commission’s initial proposals or against the Conservatives’ counter-proposals. Our proposals provide for more unchanged constituencies; more constituencies changed only to align with new ward boundaries; and more constituencies gaining or losing only 1-2 wards compared with the Commission’s proposals and compared with the Conservatives’ proposals. We achieve better alignment with local government boundaries and respect for community ties; while at the same time moving substantially fewer electors between constituencies. The improvements are seen within each of the three county areas individually as well as across the area as a whole. - I can't speak for the BCE, obviously, but for my part it's not so much that I object to a ward split as such - but I do object to this particular split because it's a breach of para 32 of the BCE's published guidelines. Please bear in mind that in Nhants the Lib Dems are rightly excoriating the BCE for breaching the exact same guideline.
- Agreed. But what's not totally clear to me here is how different your new scheme is from the Tory plan. At first sight they look broadly similar but I haven't done a detailed comparison. If you are basically supporting the Tory plan but suggesting tweaks here and there, e.g. Colchester, then that raises less concern than a completely new proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 28, 2022 11:08:02 GMT
Clacton/Harwich is only a problem if you add Stanway ward into the Harwich seat. And you shouldn't do this, as a substantial chunk of Stanway is actually in Marks Tey & Layer ward and the boundary is really odd on the ground. This does mean that you have to make the other Essex seats larger and this will tend towards the rural bits of Chelmsford district being split every which way, but it avoids dividing any actual settlements there.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 28, 2022 17:13:56 GMT
Clacton/Harwich is only a problem if you add Stanway ward into the Harwich seat. And you shouldn't do this, as a substantial chunk of Stanway is actually in Marks Tey & Layer ward and the boundary is really odd on the ground. This does mean that you have to make the other Essex seats larger and this will tend towards the rural bits of Chelmsford district being split every which way, but it avoids dividing any actual settlements there. Yes. An 18-seat Essex is a mess however you do it. The BCE plan of splitting off the northern part of Braintree district to be treated with Suffolk certainly eases the numbers in the rest of the county. It also means that you don't then have to scratch your head about the least worst place to but a Norfolk/Suffolk seat, a conundrum with no satisfactory answer; plus the BCE's 9-seat Norfolk is actually not bad.
All in all I've come round to the BCE's strategic approach to the region.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 28, 2022 18:37:50 GMT
Looking at the BCE's plans, based on an Essex/Suffolk crossing, I wondered about this:
- Compared with the BCE scheme, Barrow ward really looks like it belongs with Bury St Eds and Newmarket. This brings the seat up to 77047 but it's still within range.
- This leaves the cross-border seat short on numbers so it is compensated at the southern end with Rayne: 71034.
- Braintree town (with Bocking) then takes in Coggeshall, Kelvedon and Silver End from Braintree, plus Tiptree, Marks Tey, Stanway, Mersea from Colchester: 74887.
- Maldon is the whole district plus SWF, Bicknacre and Rettendon: 72354.
- Chelmsford loses Goat Hall as well as Galleywood: 71761.
- That leaves all remaining wards of Chelmsford, plus remaining wards of Braintree, to form a seat to be called 'Witham' or 'Mid Essex' according to taste. This neatly doughnuts Chelmsford. 69918.
This avoids dividing Maldon district and results in slightly less weird-looking Braintree and Witham seats than the BCE scheme, but I'm not proposing it at this late stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 29, 2022 8:35:32 GMT
Or rejig Maldon to include the whole district plus the four wards of Witham town: 69966. With Chelmsford as I had it just above, that leaves all remaining wards of Chelmsford district, plus Hatfield Peverel and Gt Notley from Braintree, to form Mid Essex: 72306. This arrangement affects only six seats - everything else can stay as per the BCE. It has the great merit of dividing Chelmsford district between only two seats, as well as maintaining the small Maldon district within a single seat. I'm not going to propose this but I think I feel a map coming on ...
 |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 29, 2022 8:55:07 GMT
That improves the BCE's awful Braintree seat somewhat, but Goat Hall is part of Chelmsford and I think you also need a pretty good argument to separate Great Notley from Braintree. I'm also not sure that dividing Chelmsford district between only two seats is that big a win - the town is a coherent unit, but I've never got the sense that the villages feel a strong attachment to the district as their identity. Dividing it between three seats hasn't caused any difficulties and whilst five is probably too many, four seems fine to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 29, 2022 9:16:51 GMT
That improves the BCE's awful Braintree seat somewhat, but Goat Hall is part of Chelmsford and I think you also need a pretty good argument to separate Great Notley from Braintree. I'm also not sure that dividing Chelmsford district between only two seats is that big a win - the town is a coherent unit, but I've never got the sense that the villages feel a strong attachment to the district as their identity. Dividing it between three seats hasn't caused any difficulties and whilst five is probably too many, four seems fine to me. Thanks for feedback.
I agree about Goat Hall but the Mid Essex seat has to get its numbers somewhere. You could take St Andrews ward instead, which looks even more integral to Chelmsford town than Goat Hall. The other option would be to leave Chelmsford as per the BCE and reinforce Mid Essex with Silver End; but this leaves the Braintree seat worse shaped (but still legal).
I do think, though, that Maldon-plus-Witham-town is a very tidy arrangement and, far to the north, the Bury St Eds seat is definitely improved by the addition of Barrow ward even though this takes it perilously near the upper limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 29, 2022 9:38:49 GMT
Moving on to south and west Essex, here's a plan that keeps Leigh-on-Sea together without a ward split but is replete with orphan wards. Whatever its other defects, its Basildon seat is a big improvement on the BCE version.
(I do stress I'm only playing here, but it's interesting to see what's possible.)
Saffron Waldon - 69831. Brentwood - 69935. Thurrock - 75343. Billericay - 75808. Basildon - 70581. Rayleigh and Wickford - 70243. Benfleet - 76874. Southend - 76565. Rochford - 75618.
Edited to add: It's definitely better, and gets rid of one orphan ward, to put Eastwood Pk into Rochford in exchange for the Hockley wards.
Rayleigh & Wickford - 73071. Rochford - 72790.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 29, 2022 13:45:25 GMT
Moving on to south and west Essex, here's a plan that keeps Leigh-on-Sea together without a ward split but is replete with orphan wards. Whatever its other defects, its Basildon seat is a big improvement on the BCE version.
(I do stress I'm only playing here, but it's interesting to see what's possible.)
Saffron Waldon - 69831. Brentwood - 69935. Thurrock - 75343. Billericay - 75808. Basildon - 70581. Rayleigh and Wickford - 70243. Benfleet - 76874. Southend - 76565. Rochford - 75618. Edited to add: It's definitely better, and gets rid of one orphan ward, to put Eastwood Pk into Rochford in exchange for the Hockley wards. Rayleigh & Wickford - 73071. Rochford - 72790.
Lots of interesting things here. A few notes: - That doesn't keep Leigh-on-Sea together. The civil parish also includes bits of Belfairs and Blenheim Park wards, and I think local identities stretch somewhat beyond the parish boundary too.
- I'm always keen to see what you can do with a unified Basildon ward, but Billericay is a bit of an outlier in your East Thurrock seat. Putting the Brentwood wards plus Pilgrims Hatch and South Weald in with East Thurrock eliminates an orphan ward, even if it does split Hutton from Brentwood.
- Billericay and Hutton then work well on a community basis with rural bits of Chelmsford district, though I'd have to think a bit more about what the best arrangement would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 29, 2022 14:44:10 GMT
Starting with islington's Basildon seat, here's a fairly radical remapping of Essex:  Thurrock 73347 Brentwood & E Thurrock 76391 Basildon 70581 Castle Point 76569 Southend 76870 Rochford & Southend N 72790 Rayleigh & Wickford 73071 Billericay 76733 Maldon 74758 Epping Forest 76323 Harlow 73878 Saffron Walden & Ongar 76883 Chelmsford 76454 Witham 72836 Braintree 74871 Colchester 74520 Harwich & N Essex 75954 Clacton 75959 On the plus side, three seats entirely within Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford; Maldon district is kept whole; Braintree looks decent. On the downside, Stanway has to go into Harwich & N Essex and Clacton extends a bit too far north; Witham is coherent but a bit stringy; three seats extend into three different districts; the BCE would never consider this in a million years. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 30, 2022 10:28:51 GMT
Starting with islington 's Basildon seat, here's a fairly radical remapping of Essex: Thurrock 73347 Brentwood & E Thurrock 76391 Basildon 70581 Castle Point 76569 Southend 76870 Rochford & Southend N 72790 Rayleigh & Wickford 73071 Billericay 76733 Maldon 74758 Epping Forest 76323 Harlow 73878 Saffron Walden & Ongar 76883 Chelmsford 76454 Witham 72836 Braintree 74871 Colchester 74520 Harwich & N Essex 75954 Clacton 75959 On the plus side, three seats entirely within Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford; Maldon district is kept whole; Braintree looks decent. On the downside, Stanway has to go into Harwich & N Essex and Clacton extends a bit too far north; Witham is coherent but a bit stringy; three seats extend into three different districts; the BCE would never consider this in a million years. Certainly not a bad plan but I agree with your points about Clacton, Harwich, &c, and overall the plan tends to reinforce the argument that Essex does not work awfully well with 18 seats; whereas a cross-border seat with Suffolk takes about 35000 Essex voters out of the equation and somewhat eases matters in the rest of the county. This means in turn, of course, that Norfolk, with an entitlement of 9.21, gets 9 seats and this too is potentially awkward on the numbers. However, it seems that Norfolk with 9 works out better than Essex with 18 and the BCE's initial proposals in Norfolk are actually not bad. Nevertheless, I think they can be improved with a few ward shifts in order to move fewer electors and retain unchanged the current Gt Yarmouth seat, which is coterminous with its district and should be left alone if possible. Comparisons are with the BCE plan, not the current seats. Gt Yarmouth - 70077. North Norfolk - 76949. Gains Stalham and Hicking; loses Hoveton and St Benet's. Broadland - 75889. Gains Hoveton and St Benet's; loses Lincoln. Unfortunately extends into three LAs. Mid Norfolk - 76770. Gains Lincoln and Necton (both of which are in the current seat); loses Harling and Guiltcross (thus no longer extending to the Suffolk border). South West Norfolk - 76813. Gains Harling and Guiltcross (both in the current seat); loses Necton. The two Norwich seats, plus S Norfolk and NW Norfolk, remain as proposed by the BCE. Sorry, no map because I'm not at my usual computer and I don't know how to do a screenshot. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 30, 2022 14:13:07 GMT
I think the issue with that is that the cross-county seat the BCE have proposed is so awful. You can combine Suffolk and Essex, but if you're doing that then the cross-border seat really needs to be in the east around Manningtree/Dedham Vale. That does require dividing the Babergh district, but then again it's never been a very cohesive district.
I would note that you can Tendring, Colchester and Suffolk is the right size for 11 seats, with fifteen for the rest of Essex. It does mean you have to split Colchester, which is less than ideal, but realistically if you include Stanway (and you should) then the town has around 100,000 electors anyway so it's not absolutely unconscionable. I won't be proposing something like that because I like the BCE's Colchester, but if you want to pair Suffolk and Essex then that is the least worst way to do it.
EDIT: Actually, you don't even need to split Colchester - you can keep the BCE's version, turn North Essex back into a doughnut then pair Harwich and Manningtree with the bits of Babergh east of Sudbury/Great Cornard. Haverhill then goes with that and Newmarket, Bury takes the rest of West Suffolk and the remainder of Suffolk is good for five seats. Really surprisingly neat.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 30, 2022 15:19:31 GMT
Think these are right ... Beds 6.37 Herts 11.47 Cambs 8.06 Essex 18.38 Suffolk 7.60 Norfolk 9.21 So Beds and Suffolk cannot stand alone. Herts-Beds looks sensible for 18 seats (+1) Cambs almost exactly 8 on its own (+1) That leaves either Norfolk-Suffolk or Essex-Suffolk for the third extra seat. Essex-Suffolk in all likelihood-probably incorporating Haverhill and the rural parts of the Braintree district. Haverhill/Halstead may indeed be awful but it was accurately predicted in this very forum, by greenhert , in only the third entry on this thread way back in January 2021 (see above). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 30, 2022 16:23:57 GMT
I do not feel this undermines my point, sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 30, 2022 16:56:11 GMT
I do not feel this undermines my point, sadly. I just thought it was a remarkable piece of prescience on the part of greenhert and credit should be given for it. And I'm not sure it's that much better to have a seat stretching from the port of Harwich deep into rural Suffolk almost to Sudbury. Anyway, I didn't object to Haverhill - Halstead at the first phase so I'm not going to object to it now. I am considering suggesting some more limited changes to address concerns in specific areas, e.g. regarding the Braintree seat, and supporting the idea (suggested by the Tories, probably others) of keeping Maldon district together - see the plan I suggested at 0935 yesterday. But in most of Essex I'd broadly accept the BCE's initial plans - the time to suggest wholesale changes was at the first stage, not now. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 30, 2022 18:47:00 GMT
I do not feel this undermines my point, sadly. I just thought it was a remarkable piece of prescience on the part of greenhert and credit should be given for it. And I'm not sure it's that much better to have a seat stretching from the port of Harwich deep into rural Suffolk almost to Sudbury. Anyway, I didn't object to Haverhill - Halstead at the first phase so I'm not going to object to it now. I am considering suggesting some more limited changes to address concerns in specific areas, e.g. regarding the Braintree seat, and supporting the idea (suggested by the Tories, probably others) of keeping Maldon district together - see the plan I suggested at 0935 yesterday. But in most of Essex I'd broadly accept the BCE's initial plans - the time to suggest wholesale changes was at the first stage, not now. Harwich has good links to Manningtree and to the Shotley peninsula. Dedham Vale has good links to the countryside round Sudbury. It's not ideal, but it's not really any sillier than Harwich and Mersea Island being in the same seat. And it's vastly better than pairing Braintree's hinterland with Bury St Edmunds' - those two areas look in entirely different directions. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 31, 2022 9:38:39 GMT
Here's my attempt at an Essex-Suffolk pairing with the crossing at Manningtree. Seats which are unchanged except for re-alignment to new ward boundaries in bold, seats matching the initial proposals in italics:   Thurrock 73347 Basildon S & Thurrock E 74936* Basildon & Billericay 76993 Castle Point 69309* Southend W 76600 Rochford & Southend E 70318 Rayleigh & Wickford 76422 Brentwood & Ongar 74937 Epping Forest 72785 Harlow 70190 Saffron Walden 70305 Braintree 74871 Maldon & Witham 69966 Mid Essex 71550 Chelmsford 76454 Colchester 74520 North Essex 75930 Clacton 73545 Stour Valley 70115 SW Suffolk 73677 Bury St Edmunds 74999 N Suffolk 73254 Stowmarket & Ipswich N 70908 Ipswich 75117 SE Suffolk 71308 Lowestoft 73968 *I've gone for a split of Pitsea SE along the lines proposed by the Tories here, as it's neatest on the ground. However, it does breach paragraph 32. If you're not happy with this you can instead follow the BCE proposals for Castle Point, Southend and Rochford. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,114
|
Post by ilerda on Mar 31, 2022 10:30:11 GMT
    Personally I think provided the numbers can work it's better to cross the Norfolk-Suffolk county boundary than the Essex-Suffolk one. I don't think a Halstead & Haverhill seat that extends all the way up to Bury St Edmunds as the BCE proposes is particularly desirable, and whilst any cross-county seat will have some flaws, I think a Southwold & Diss seat is a little more coherent. In terms of Essex, there are no easy answers but I've kept the existing seats intact in Epping Forest and Brentwood & Ongar, and also followed the BCE's proposals in Thamesside Essex apart from adding an extra ward into Rayleigh & Wickford and transferring one over to Rochford & Southend East in turn. I don't particularly like what the BCE propose but there are no easy answers in that part of the world unfortunately given the numbers involved. 1 Maldon 74346 2 Colchester South 73976 3 Harwich and Colchester North 77006 4 Clacton 75451 5 Braintree 74926 6 Saffron Walden 76501 7 Harlow 73479 8 Epping Forest 74553 9 Brentwood and Ongar 74937 10 Basildon North and Billericay 76993 11 Witham and Woodham 76579 12 Chelmsford 74240 13 Rayleigh and Wickford 76443 14 Rochford and Southend East 74689 15 Southend West 69817 16 Castle Point 76569 17 Basildon South and East Thurrock 76260 18 Grays Thurrock 72023 19 South Suffolk 71070 20 Ipswich 75117 21 West Suffolk 72211 22 Bury St Edmunds 71558 23 Stowmarket and North Ipswich 70564 24 Woodbridge 75172 25 Southwold and Diss 74109 26 Lowestoft 73967 27 Great Yarmouth 70077 28 South East Norfolk 70620 29 Norwich South 73515 30 Norwich North 74086 31 Broadland 70635 32 North Norfolk 70313 33 South West Norfolk 74695 34 North West Norfolk 75200 35 Mid Norfolk 70404 |
|
