andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,813
|
Post by andrea on Nov 7, 2022 21:58:41 GMT
Take the London link posted in the general thread and put EASTERN instead of LONDON in the link. Same for other regions. Keep the spaces for regions with more than one word I've tried NORTHWEST, NORTH-WEST, and NORTH_WEST and no success for me  NORTH WEST It worked for me |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 7, 2022 22:04:23 GMT
That Harwich and North Essex is, impressively, even stupider than the current arrangement. Not a surprise given that Prettygate and Lexden are full of the sorts of people who will respond to this kind of thing, whereas Old Heath very much isn't, but still impressively stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 7, 2022 22:05:29 GMT
Take the London link posted in the general thread and put EASTERN instead of LONDON in the link. Same for other regions. Keep the spaces for regions with more than one word I've tried NORTHWEST, NORTH-WEST, and NORTH_WEST and no success for me NORTH%20WEST |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,065
|
Post by nyx on Nov 7, 2022 22:41:44 GMT
Disappointed to see they kept the "North West Cambridgeshire" name for a constituency that's mostly Peterborough.
They could have at least renamed the existing Peterborough constituency to "Peterborough North" for clarity...
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Nov 7, 2022 23:16:43 GMT
Disappointed they didn’t put Queen Edith’s back in Cambridge. They toyed with us by suggest that was a possibility. It seems wrong to have Addenbrookes and a sole Cambridge college outside of the seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 7, 2022 23:19:14 GMT
Thetford & Newmarket would have made a lot more sense than Waveney Valley in terms of a cross-county constituency between Norfolk and Suffolk. I am surprised the BCE recommended an alternative pattern that included keeping Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket together; the two towns apart from not being in the same local authority as each other are of a very different nature, have very different needs, and look in different directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Nov 7, 2022 23:40:21 GMT
I am surprised the BCE recommended an alternative pattern that included keeping Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket together; the two towns apart from not being in the same local authority as each other are of a very different nature, have very different needs, and look in different directions. Tbf they've gone for minimum-change from existing constituencies |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Nov 7, 2022 23:45:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 8, 2022 9:52:51 GMT
I'm very surprised they've changed their proposals in Norwich. They claim that with a Norfolk/Suffolk pairing it's difficult to make it work, but this could be most politely described as a lie, because there are several counter-proposals that did just that.
They also talk about how it would divide the city centre, which is a point they've raised in several areas that I just don't understand - city centres by their very nature are a focal point for wide areas extending beyond the city, they don't 'belong' to any one constituency. In the meantime they flag up that their alternative proposal splits a new housing development in two.
It does feel like there's been an element of second-mover advantage in some of these reports - if they've had sustained criticism from whatever direction to a proposal, they're more likely to accept the alternative than to listen to those backing their suggestions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 10:40:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 8, 2022 10:47:36 GMT
It's mentioned in the report and their view is that they don't care because the ward is also not contiguous.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,065
|
Post by nyx on Nov 8, 2022 10:59:03 GMT
It does feel like there's been an element of second-mover advantage in some of these reports - if they've had sustained criticism from whatever direction to a proposal, they're more likely to accept the alternative than to listen to those backing their suggestions. I think that’s so that they have two clear alternatives available for the final review, so they have the choice between keeping the revised proposal and reverting to the initial one based on public feedback? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 8, 2022 11:29:10 GMT
Ye gods (and little fishes) -
That Harwich seat is a thing of beauty, isn't it?
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633 
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 8, 2022 11:42:32 GMT
Thetford & Newmarket would have made a lot more sense than Waveney Valley in terms of a cross-county constituency between Norfolk and Suffolk. I am surprised the BCE recommended an alternative pattern that included keeping Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket together; the two towns apart from not being in the same local authority as each other are of a very different nature, have very different needs, and look in different directions. Yeah I agree and my counter-proposal was along those lines. It's discussed at length in the report, and the Waveney Valley seat is a lot better than Haverhill and Wotsit, but I hadn't factored in that Newmarket is surrounded by Cambs, so they didn't feel they could cross it with Norfolk. I made arguments around military, foresting, equestrian and leisure connections but c'est la vie. Once Waveney Valley split, they seem to have gone for the minimal change knock-ons everywhere, with something slightly unholy in Norwich. Kicking myself that I didn't get my 'Cambridge doughnut' in at an earlier stage as it would have elegantly fixed problems across Cambs, but the issues were either ignored (all the complaints from west of Cambs not even mentioned) or they were clear they didn't care (the detached ward at Milton and Waterbeach.) The one change I did expect to see made was the Luton switch, and I'm genuinely surprised they've stuck with both the horrible Luton South and South Bedfordshire name and boundaries. The fact that there were 2 competing counter-proposals maybe didn't help, and they even considered a ward split here. I might have another look at this - I can't believe they are really going to stick with this but they are also clear that they will want new evidence / proposals where they haven't changed at this stage. Luton strikes me as the weakest aspect of a pretty good job all round though. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 8, 2022 11:59:54 GMT
Ye gods (and little fishes) - That Harwich seat is a thing of beauty, isn't it? It was always an awful seat, but I'm impressed they've found a way to make it worse. Though it has to be said they got a lot of responses from Mersea which didn't want to go with Witham, and only some of those used obvious bad faith argumentation. I think if Lexden has to stay in Colchester (and given the number of responses they got, it probably does) then I suspect there are two viable counter-proposals: 1. Leave Mersea in HNE, but put Old Heath back in Colchester and shift Mile End (and the Braiswick portion of Lexden and Braiswick) into HNE. Mile End is separated from the rest of Colchester by the railway line and Highwoods County Park, and it's got good access to the A120. It still doesn't fit with HNE, but it does so a bit better than Old Heath; 2. Do the same, but put Mersea in with Witham and transfer both The Colnes and Coggeshall into HNE. The former doesn't fit with Witham and the latter avoids an orphan ward and makes sense in an A120 constituency. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,720
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 8, 2022 15:42:23 GMT
Ha! I notice that the exclave contains Cambridge North railway station, which is one I travel through on my regular visits to Wymondham  Although it is also proposed that the new boundary of Norfolk South constituency will no longer go along the fence at my sister's back garden |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 9, 2022 0:15:59 GMT
Can I float something and see what you think? The one feature of the Eastern map that still bugs me is Luton. 2 problems: - Luton South 'and South Bedfordshire' have to take 2 Central Beds wards including Eaton Bray which is a rural ward facing Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable. Only road connection is a B-road across Dunstable Downs.
- Luton North has to take Stopsley ward from Luton South - there is one small road across the boundary and no community ties at all.
There's a perfectly good solution to move 3 Houghton Regis wards to Luton North, send Eaton Bray back to the Leighton Buzzard/Dunstable seat, move Stopsley back to Luton South. I'm genuinely surprised the BCE didn't go for it, on the grounds that Houghton Regis and Dunstable are currently in the same seat so shouldn't be split. However, the commentary indicates they looked seriously at a ward split here, in the Dunstable Icknield ward. They rejected this as it wouldn't be much good, would divide Dunstable, and it would mean a part orphan ward across the M1 - I can't really blame them for not going with this. BUT - if they are admitting split wards can be considered here, I think there's a better option to solve issue #2. You might remember Dallow ward - there was a by-election there recently. It's an awful ward - a huge retail/industrial estate with all the residential areas on the edges:  So not winning any prizes for community identity already, and note the northern residential area of this ward is better connected to the ward above, then the rest of its own ward. This is a distinct polling district:  If this polling district DLBS was moved into Luton North, then the numbers would allow Stopsley to remain in the South seat.  Eaton Bray ain't fixed but c'est la vie. Interested if anyone thinks this could be viable - no other knock-ons other than fixing Stopsley and I've only looked at it as the BCE are saying that ward splits are on the table here. |
|
|
|
Post by cherrycoffin on Nov 9, 2022 8:13:02 GMT
Does anyone know why the boundary commission aren’t using the new local boundary wards for Bedford Borough (and perhaps other areas) in their proposed constituencies? They’re still using the wards that were replaced almost a year ago
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 9, 2022 8:16:22 GMT
Does anyone know why the boundary commission aren’t using the new local boundary wards for Bedford Borough (and perhaps other areas) in their proposed constituencies? They’re still using the wards that were replaced almost a year ago Only new ward boundaries which were approved by December 2020 were meant to be used. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Nov 13, 2022 16:16:17 GMT
Can I float something and see what you think? The one feature of the Eastern map that still bugs me is Luton. 2 problems: - Luton South 'and South Bedfordshire' have to take 2 Central Beds wards including Eaton Bray which is a rural ward facing Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable. Only road connection is a B-road across Dunstable Downs.
- Luton North has to take Stopsley ward from Luton South - there is one small road across the boundary and no community ties at all.
There's a perfectly good solution to move 3 Houghton Regis wards to Luton North, send Eaton Bray back to the Leighton Buzzard/Dunstable seat, move Stopsley back to Luton South. I'm genuinely surprised the BCE didn't go for it, on the grounds that Houghton Regis and Dunstable are currently in the same seat so shouldn't be split. However, the commentary indicates they looked seriously at a ward split here, in the Dunstable Icknield ward. They rejected this as it wouldn't be much good, would divide Dunstable, and it would mean a part orphan ward across the M1 - I can't really blame them for not going with this. BUT - if they are admitting split wards can be considered here, I think there's a better option to solve issue #2. You might remember Dallow ward - there was a by-election there recently. It's an awful ward - a huge retail/industrial estate with all the residential areas on the edges: So not winning any prizes for community identity already, and note the northern residential area of this ward is better connected to the ward above, then the rest of its own ward. This is a distinct polling district: If this polling district DLBS was moved into Luton North, then the numbers would allow Stopsley to remain in the South seat. Eaton Bray ain't fixed but c'est la vie. Interested if anyone thinks this could be viable - no other knock-ons other than fixing Stopsley and I've only looked at it as the BCE are saying that ward splits are on the table here. Agree, those residential streets in that polling district seem to have better links to Luton North. When was Luton Council last reviewed? Presumably there is a reason why that ward was necessary. |
|
