|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 9, 2021 10:39:03 GMT
To be honest, that's why I like Mid names - it's a signal that indicates 'this is a bit amorphous, but it makes everything else work better'.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jan 9, 2021 16:15:56 GMT
Don't forget West Bromwich West! Some very good plans on here - though Mid/Central Cambridgeshire (or other appropriate compass point) sounds better than Ramsey which could be anywhere - I have never heard of it, and I spent a year in Cambridge! Anywhere could be anywhere if you haven't heard of it. Your ignorance or otherwise of a place is not the best criteria on which to base the naming of Parliamentary constituencies and a Mid-somewhere name is very rarely an appropriate or better sounding name for any constituency (still less 'Central' when referring to a Count constituency.) Ramsey is the major settlement (not counting Peterborough suburbs) in North Huntingdonshire (though as EAL pointed out St Ives is the largest town here, but that is on the periphery of the seat and the name is taken). Everyone else on this forum has heard of Ramsey because a) it has been the name of a Parliamentary constituency previously and b) the town council was the first local authority in the country to be controlled by UKIP. Not that it matters much how many people from outside the area have heard of it. How many people would have heard of Ince? Of course there is already another St Ives - though wouldn't Penzance, Land's End or West Cornwall be preferable for that one? They could reinvent the wheel and have county constituencies that follow the Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool etc model, e.g. Cornwall St Ives, Cambridgeshire St Ives, Cambridgeshire Ely, etc to please both the 'get our little town's name on the map' and 'where on earth is x' sides. Weren't London constituencies (another region of ignorance on my part) preceded by the borough name at one point (and a handful still are, of course) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 9, 2021 16:37:46 GMT
 NW Norfolk (70536)SW Norfolk (69855) Mid Norfolk (73055) Wymondham (70620) Norwich S (73515) Norwich N (74086) Broadland (75034) N Norfolk (72767) Great Yarmouth (70077)Lowestoft (70418) Diss and E Suffolk (72808) SE Suffolk (75172) Ipswich (75117)
S Suffolk (71070)Stowmarket and N Ipswich (73203) Bury St Edmunds (71777) W Suffolk (74203) Seats in italic are unchanged after re-alignment to new ward boundaries. There are some alternative possibilities in terms of how exactly you do the cross-county seat, but that looks like the only serious possibility for Norwich and as Ipswich is in quota it isn't going to change, so the partisan outcomes are more or less baked in. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 9, 2021 17:26:45 GMT
That cross county seat is pretty awful but everything else looks good so we probably have to live with that. I wanted to add Bradwell and Lothingland to Lowestoft for the cross county seat but as Great Yarmouth can stay as is thats really a non-starter
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 9, 2021 17:31:08 GMT
Anywhere could be anywhere if you haven't heard of it. Your ignorance or otherwise of a place is not the best criteria on which to base the naming of Parliamentary constituencies and a Mid-somewhere name is very rarely an appropriate or better sounding name for any constituency (still less 'Central' when referring to a Count constituency.) Ramsey is the major settlement (not counting Peterborough suburbs) in North Huntingdonshire (though as EAL pointed out St Ives is the largest town here, but that is on the periphery of the seat and the name is taken). Everyone else on this forum has heard of Ramsey because a) it has been the name of a Parliamentary constituency previously and b) the town council was the first local authority in the country to be controlled by UKIP. Not that it matters much how many people from outside the area have heard of it. How many people would have heard of Ince? ? They could reinvent the wheel and have county constituencies that follow the Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool etc model, e.g. Cornwall St Ives, Cambridgeshire St Ives, Cambridgeshire Ely, etc to please both the 'get our little town's name on the map' and 'where on earth is x' sides. Weren't London constituencies (another region of ignorance on my part) preceded by the borough name at one point (and a handful still are, of course) Given the abolition of the District Council Penwith would be an appropriate name. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 9, 2021 18:13:21 GMT
That cross county seat is pretty awful but everything else looks good so we probably have to live with that. I wanted to add Bradwell and Lothingland to Lowestoft for the cross county seat but as Great Yarmouth can stay as is thats really a non-starter One alternative option is to keep Stowmarket in with Bury and make the cross-county seat out of areas north of Bury taken from west Suffolk, the north of Mid Suffolk and Diss and environs. You then need to get two seats out of the rest of CSNI and Suffolk Coastal. Mathematically, North Ipswich and Felixstowe works, but it seems silly to do that when there's no chance of Ipswich's boundaries changing. I presume the BCE still have an implicit ban on any seats involving 4 or more local authorities? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 10, 2021 10:57:02 GMT
NW Norfolk (70536)SW Norfolk (69855) Mid Norfolk (73055) Wymondham (70620) Norwich S (73515) Norwich N (74086) Broadland (75034) N Norfolk (72767) Great Yarmouth (70077)Lowestoft (70418) Diss and E Suffolk (72808) SE Suffolk (75172) Ipswich (75117)
S Suffolk (71070)Stowmarket and N Ipswich (73203) Bury St Edmunds (71777) W Suffolk (74203) Seats in italic are unchanged after re-alignment to new ward boundaries. There are some alternative possibilities in terms of how exactly you do the cross-county seat, but that looks like the only serious possibility for Norwich and as Ipswich is in quota it isn't going to change, so the partisan outcomes are more or less baked in. Stowmarket & Diss is a much better cross-county seat between Norfolk and Suffolk. There are no usable links between Diss and the area in East Suffolk around Leiston, whereas there are decent links (not just a railway line) between Stowmarket and Diss. This will require substantial changes to Ipswich via the creation of Ipswich West and Ipswich East & Felixstowe (the rest of East Suffolk becomes Woodbridge) but it works out better for Norfolk and Suffolk overall. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 10, 2021 11:15:26 GMT
Attempt at a minimum change plan for Cambridgeshire: East Cambridgeshire (76729) - successor to SE Cambs, gains the rest of East Cambs district, loses all of South Cambs district bar Over & Willingham and Milton & Waterbeach. You could swap the former for Cottenham to produce neater lines, but it moves about 10k additional electors. My preference would be to have the seat take Fen Ditton & Fulbourn and Balsham instead, but I struggled to make the numbers work for that. I know the detached bit of Milton parish is isolated, but honestly that's a complete non-issue - it only has a road connection to Cambridge and the ward won't be placed in the Cambridge seat, so it's not worth producing a doughnut seat in order that you can swim the Cam without moving from one constituency to another. South Cambridgeshire (75909, using the Boundary Assistant numbers for Cambridge wards) - gains Trumpington from Cambridge and Linton; Fen Ditton & Fulbourn and Balsham from SE Cambs. Loses Caldecote, Cambourne, Caxton & Papworth, Swaves, Bar Hill, Girton, Longstanton and Cottenham. Cambridge (71746, using the Boundary Assistant numbers) - lose Trumpington Mid Cambridgeshire (76918) - the new seat. The rest of South Cambs district, Fenstanton, the 3 St Ives wards, Hemingford Grey & Houghton, Holywell-cum-Needingworth, Somersham and Warboys. Not overly keen on including the last one, but Godmanchester really ought to go with Huntingdon and this way moves fewer electors. You can argue this should be called St Ives, or St Ives & Cambourne, but I figure neither is that large and you don't want aspiring MPs to get confused and catch a train to Cornwall instead. Huntingdon (73371) - realigns to new ward boundaries (meaning it gains the rest of Alconbury, Great Staughton and Kimbolton wards), gains Sawtry, loses 5 wards to Mid Cambridgeshire. North West Cambridgeshire (73356) - realigns to new ward boundaries, loses all of Huntingdonshire except Ramsey, Yaxley and Stilton etc. Peterborough (72293) - realigns to new ward boundaries, otherwise unchanged. North East Cambridgeshire (70806) - shrinks down to just Fenland district. After realignment to new ward boundaries, this plan would move 117485 electors. I'm not convinced it'd be the best map (in particular I like the idea of extending Peterborough south of the Nene) but I think it's useful as a point of comparison. This is the best plan for Cambridgeshire overall, although the updated Boundary Assistant electoral figures mean that it is no longer possible for the constituency of Cambridge to simply lose Trumpington (which has experienced significant growth recently) as this would put Cambridge under quota. Instead it should lose Cherry Hinton, which also means less change to neighbouring constituencies. Huntingdon should really be renamed Huntingdon & St Neots if it is to lose St Ives, given that St Neots actually has a greater population than Huntingdon. With the shrunken version of NW Cambridgeshire containing mostly Peterborough suburbs, Peterborough West & Ramsey would be a more fitting name, with Peterborough becoming Peterborough East. I feel East Cambridgeshire should be renamed Ely & Waterbeach; it is not fair that Ely is the only cathedral city in England without a constituency including its name somewhere. North East Cambridgeshire can be renamed Fenland now that it is coterminous with the district (either name fits). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 10, 2021 11:42:38 GMT
Attempt at a minimum change plan for Cambridgeshire: East Cambridgeshire (76729) - successor to SE Cambs, gains the rest of East Cambs district, loses all of South Cambs district bar Over & Willingham and Milton & Waterbeach. You could swap the former for Cottenham to produce neater lines, but it moves about 10k additional electors. My preference would be to have the seat take Fen Ditton & Fulbourn and Balsham instead, but I struggled to make the numbers work for that. I know the detached bit of Milton parish is isolated, but honestly that's a complete non-issue - it only has a road connection to Cambridge and the ward won't be placed in the Cambridge seat, so it's not worth producing a doughnut seat in order that you can swim the Cam without moving from one constituency to another. South Cambridgeshire (75909, using the Boundary Assistant numbers for Cambridge wards) - gains Trumpington from Cambridge and Linton; Fen Ditton & Fulbourn and Balsham from SE Cambs. Loses Caldecote, Cambourne, Caxton & Papworth, Swaves, Bar Hill, Girton, Longstanton and Cottenham. Cambridge (71746, using the Boundary Assistant numbers) - lose Trumpington Mid Cambridgeshire (76918) - the new seat. The rest of South Cambs district, Fenstanton, the 3 St Ives wards, Hemingford Grey & Houghton, Holywell-cum-Needingworth, Somersham and Warboys. Not overly keen on including the last one, but Godmanchester really ought to go with Huntingdon and this way moves fewer electors. You can argue this should be called St Ives, or St Ives & Cambourne, but I figure neither is that large and you don't want aspiring MPs to get confused and catch a train to Cornwall instead. Huntingdon (73371) - realigns to new ward boundaries (meaning it gains the rest of Alconbury, Great Staughton and Kimbolton wards), gains Sawtry, loses 5 wards to Mid Cambridgeshire. North West Cambridgeshire (73356) - realigns to new ward boundaries, loses all of Huntingdonshire except Ramsey, Yaxley and Stilton etc. Peterborough (72293) - realigns to new ward boundaries, otherwise unchanged. North East Cambridgeshire (70806) - shrinks down to just Fenland district. After realignment to new ward boundaries, this plan would move 117485 electors. I'm not convinced it'd be the best map (in particular I like the idea of extending Peterborough south of the Nene) but I think it's useful as a point of comparison. This is the best plan for Cambridgeshire overall, although the updated Boundary Assistant electoral figures mean that it is no longer possible for the constituency of Cambridge to simply lose Trumpington (which has experienced significant growth recently) as this would put Cambridge under quota. Instead it should lose Cherry Hinton, which also means less change to neighbouring constituencies. Huntingdon should really be renamed Huntingdon & St Neots if it is to lose St Ives, given that St Neots actually has a greater population than Huntingdon. With the shrunken version of NW Cambridgeshire containing mostly Peterborough suburbs, Peterborough West & Ramsey would be a more fitting name, with Peterborough becoming Peterborough East. I feel East Cambridgeshire should be renamed Ely & Waterbeach; it is not fair that Ely is the only cathedral city in England without a constituency including its name somewhere. North East Cambridgeshire can be renamed Fenland now that it is coterminous with the district (either name fits). You're missing something - the ONS figures for Trumpington are wrong, as I've mentioned. They've given the electorates for the old Cambridge wards (under which Trumpington was substantially larger), rather than the new ones. Once that is corrected, it ought to be OK. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jan 11, 2021 19:45:43 GMT
I'm giving a 10% bonus to anyone that revives 'Eye' as a constituency name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 11, 2021 21:06:14 GMT
I think with a few tweeks EAL's cross-county seat could be Eye & Diss
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 11, 2021 21:28:04 GMT
I think with a few tweeks EAL's cross-county seat could be Eye & Diss Or Diss & Dat |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 11, 2021 22:15:04 GMT
I think with a few tweeks EAL's cross-county seat could be Eye & Diss  1. North Norfolk 70,719 2. Broadland 72,907 3. North West Norfolk 70,536 4. Great Yarmouth 70,077 5. Dereham 73,279 6. South West Norfolk 74,941 7. Norwich North 71,441 8. Norwich South 73,301 9. South East Norfolk 72,352 10. Waveney 73,967 11. Suffolk Coastal 72,663 12. West Suffolk 74,203 13. Bury St Edmunds 72,737 14. South Suffolk 71,070 15. Ipswich 75,117 16. Thredling & Ipswich North 71,020 17. Eye & Diss 72,983 Yes, I looked at a map of Suffolk hundreds... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 12, 2021 10:05:31 GMT
Pete's map for Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire is probably more or less what we'll end up with, but here's an alternative if they decide to cross the county boundary along the axis of the M1 instead of the A1:  Bedford 70068 North Bedfordshire 70702 Biggleswade 74778 Leighton Buzzard 71931 Luton North & Houghton 70909 Luton South 73480 Dunstable & Harpenden 71590* Hemel Hempstead 74535 SW Hertfordshire 72585 Watford 75562 Borehamwood & Bushey 73570 St Albans 70881 Welwyn Hatfield 74535 Hitchin & Letchworth 70627 Stevenage 71374 NE Hertfordshire 73151 Hertford & Hoddesdon 75398 SE Hertfordshire 73103 *You could shift Watling in from Hemel to improve the shape, but it's an extra borough crossing and without it Hemel can remain unchanged. Things in this map's favour: - Bedford, Hemel, St Albans and Welwyn are unchanged
- Bedford and East Hertfordshire now only split between two seats, not three
- Hitchin and Letchworth are an obvious pair
- Much of Chesfield is an urban extension of Stevenage, so putting it in with the town makes sense
- Judging by ward names, Hoddesdon is kept intact
- If you have to remove a ward from Watford, Oxhey is the obvious choice
Points against: - Broxbourne and Hertsmere could have remained unchanged, but this map slices and dices them
- Dunstable & Harpenden is either extremely stringy or needs an orphan ward
- Watford Borough is divided when it's small enough to remain intact
- I can't get away with calling Borehamwood & Bushey 'Watford South and Borehamwood'
- The two arms of North Bedfordshire are a bit ugly - maybe it's better to continue splitting the Bedford UA three ways?
- From a partisan perspective, would have much preferred to stick South Oxhey and Watford in the same seat
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 12, 2021 10:17:07 GMT
Pete's map for Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire is probably more or less what we'll end up with, but here's an alternative if they decide to cross the county boundary along the axis of the M1 instead of the A1: Bedford 70068 North Bedfordshire 70702 Biggleswade 74778 Leighton Buzzard 71931 Luton North & Houghton 70909 Luton South 73480 Dunstable & Harpenden 71590* Hemel Hempstead 74535 SW Hertfordshire 72585 Watford 75562 Borehamwood & Bushey 73570 St Albans 70881 Welwyn Hatfield 74535 Hitchin & Letchworth 70627 Stevenage 71374 NE Hertfordshire 73151 Hertford & Hoddesdon 75398 SE Hertfordshire 73103 *You could shift Watling in from Hemel to improve the shape, but it's an extra borough crossing and without it Hemel can remain unchanged. Things in this map's favour: - Bedford, Hemel, St Albans and Welwyn are unchanged
- Bedford and East Hertfordshire now only split between two seats, not three
- Hitchin and Letchworth are an obvious pair
- Much of Chesfield is an urban extension of Stevenage, so putting it in with the town makes sense
- Judging by ward names, Hoddesdon is kept intact
- If you have to remove a ward from Watford, Oxhey is the obvious choice
Points against: - Broxbourne and Hertsmere could have remained unchanged, but this map slices and dices them
- Dunstable & Harpenden is either extremely stringy or needs an orphan ward
- Watford Borough is divided when it's small enough to remain intact
- I can't get away with calling Borehamwood & Bushey 'Watford South and Borehamwood'
- The two arms of North Bedfordshire are a bit ugly - maybe it's better to continue splitting the Bedford UA three ways?
- From a partisan perspective, would have much preferred to stick South Oxhey and Watford in the same seat
I actually quite like that - I'd put Watling ward from Dacorum in your Dunstable & Harpenden seat because it connects it better even though it does create an orphan ward out of a third district and makes Hemel look a bit weird. I like Bushey getting a mention - not sure i'm happy with it having to share a constituency with Borehamwood and South Oxhey ... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 12, 2021 10:31:50 GMT
You can achieve what you want to do with Watford by drawing St Albans as it was for the last review and then making a complete horlicks out of Welwyn Hatfield  |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 12, 2021 11:12:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 12, 2021 11:21:17 GMT
I think they only announced that as a rule for the first zombie Review. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 12, 2021 11:25:00 GMT
You can achieve what you want to do with Watford by drawing St Albans as it was for the last review and then making a complete horlicks out of Welwyn Hatfield I don't imagine the BCE would look any more kindly on Woodside being cut out of Watford than Oxhey, so I think unfortunately we're just not going to get a Watford and Watford Rural map. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 12, 2021 11:28:10 GMT
You can achieve what you want to do with Watford by drawing St Albans as it was for the last review and then making a complete horlicks out of Welwyn Hatfield I don't imagine the BCE would look any more kindly on Woodside being cut out of Watford than Oxhey, so I think unfortunately we're just not going to get a Watford and Watford Rural map. That is actually what they proposed in their final recommendations in the last review - from what I can recall it was exactly that arrangement in Watford and St Albans (obviously no need for it now with the smaller electorate sizes as St Albans works fine with just pulling out if Three Rivers). So the BCE have no problem with doing that in principle, just on this occasion its totally unnecessary |
|
