2023 Review - East of England

[East Anglian Lefty]

Although on the basis that St Stephen and Verulam wards shared a boundary of maybe 50 yards, you could give the world this hideous creation which nevertheless spares Welwyn Hatfield:

[East Anglian Lefty]

Here's a refinement of the Suffolk-Norfolk cross-border concept.



Relative to my first map, I've left SE Suffolk unchanged because it's such a natural seat. I know you could probably improve it if you took in SE Ipswich, but the BCE are never going to go for that when Ipswich is in quota so I see zero point in suggesting it.

Waveney keeps Kessingland to minimise the movement of electors. Risby shifts from West Suffolk to Bury St Edmunds because although the ward extends a fair way west, almost all the electors are at the eastern end, just outside Bury. This also allows it to shed Onehouse, meaning that Stowmarket is now in the same seat as all its neighbouring villages.

The big change is to add two wards of Mid Suffolk district to the cross-border seat, and to orient South Norfolk east/west rather than north/south. You can do the former without having to do the latter, but I think this makes South Norfolk work better. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you could reasonably call the cross-border seat, because its defining characteristic is that there aren't any substantial settlements, especially on the Norfolk side. Valleys of Alde and Yare?

[Pete Whitehead]

I suppose Waveney is now available (as you're now calling Lowestoft Lowestoft and the district no longer exists) but probably not the best..
Southwold or Halesworth seem worthy of mention but nothing on the Norfolk side

[East Anglian Lefty]

If you did arrange the constituencies in South Norfolk from north to south, Waveney Valley might work? Though it doesn't really apply to the south of the seat and I don't think any of the old hundred names have any continuing relevance round that way.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I'm 99% certain the figures for Cambridge are wrong, but if they are the ones we have to work from then my proposed map is similar to just about all the others ones in this thread bar Pete's:



I've made some slightly different decisions in terms of which wards make where and if you'd like me to I can explain them, but honestly if you're that interested in the community identities of Cambridgeshire suburban villages then I recommend seeking professional help. Certainly if you're putting St Neots in with South Cambs then a doughnut seat is your best option, because St Neots is too large to take in all the villages north of Cambridge and west of the Cam without having to remove Cambourne, which defeats the point of a St Neots-South Cambs seat.

[islington]

Jan 12, 2021 13:03:13 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Here's a refinement of the Suffolk-Norfolk cross-border concept.



Relative to my first map, I've left SE Suffolk unchanged because it's such a natural seat. I know you could probably improve it if you took in SE Ipswich, but the BCE are never going to go for that when Ipswich is in quota so I see zero point in suggesting it.

Waveney keeps Kessingland to minimise the movement of electors. Risby shifts from West Suffolk to Bury St Edmunds because although the ward extends a fair way west, almost all the electors are at the eastern end, just outside Bury. This also allows it to shed Onehouse, meaning that Stowmarket is now in the same seat as all its neighbouring villages.

The big change is to add two wards of Mid Suffolk district to the cross-border seat, and to orient South Norfolk east/west rather than north/south. You can do the former without having to do the latter, but I think this makes South Norfolk work better. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you could reasonably call the cross-border seat, because its defining characteristic is that there aren't any substantial settlements, especially on the Norfolk side. Valleys of Alde and Yare?

EAL, you've pretty much cracked it here. But I'd look at possibly adding Diss, Bressingham, Bunwell, Beck Vale to your unnamable seat - with Ditchingham and the four wards north of it going the other way. This has the merit of including a recognizable town as a focus for the Norfolk side of the seat, which I'd call East Suffolk and Diss (71351). The other seat (73378) could still just about be called S Norfolk (or SE Norfolk or Wymondham according to taste).

[greenhert]

My plan for Norfolk/Suffolk:

1. North Norfolk (72,767). Gains Walsingham ward (necessary to get Broadland into quota).
2. North West Norfolk (70,536). Adjusted to new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged.
3. Great Yarmouth (70,077). Unchanged.
4. South West Norfolk (74,941). Adjusted to new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged.
5. Broadland (75,034). Loses Walsingham ward in North Norfolk.
6. Dereham (73,279). Succeeds Mid Norfolk. Loses all Wymondham wards.
7. Wymondham (70,575). Succeeds South Norfolk. Loses Beck Vale, Dickleburgh & Sole, Bressingham & Burston, Diss & Roydon, Harleston and Old Costessey wards, and gains all Wymondham wards.
8. Norwich North (74,086). Gains Thorpe Hamlet ward.
9. Norwich South (73,515). Loses Thorpe Hamlet ward in Norwich, gains Old Costessey ward in South Norfolk.
10. Stowmarket & Diss (76,808). New seat. Contains all Mid Suffolk wards except for Elmswell & Woolpit, Fressingfield, Onehouse, Rattlesden, Rickinghall, Stradbroke & Laxfield, Thurston, and Walsham-le-Willows, and the South Norfolk wards of Beck Vale, Dickleburgh & Sole, Bressingham & Burston, Diss & Roydon, and Harleston.
11. Bury St Edmunds (71,279). Loses within the Mid Suffolk the area around Stowmarket and Needham Market and also Bacton and Gislingham wards, gains within West Suffolk the wards of Bamingham, Bardwell, Barrow, Ixworth, Risby, and Stanton.
12. West Suffolk (69,879). Loses the wards of Bamingham, Bardwell, Barrow, Ixworth, Risby, and Stanton.
13. Babergh (71,070). Succeeds South Suffolk. Loses villages in West Suffolk and thus becomes coterminous with Babergh district.
14. Lowestoft (70,418). Succeeds Waveney. Loses Bungay & Wainford and Kessingland wards.
15. Woodbridge (72,684). Succeeds Suffolk Coastal. Loses area around Felixstowe, and gains the Mid Suffolk wards of Fressingfield and Stradbroke & Laxfield, and gains the East Suffolk wards of Bungay & Wainford, Framlingham, Kessingland, and Wickham Market.
16. Ipswich West (74,081). Succeeds Ipswich. Loses Bixley, Priory Heath and St John's wards, and gains Castle Hill, Whitehouse, and Whitton wards.
17. Felixstowe & Ipswich East (72,337). New seat. Contains the Ipswich wards of Bixley, Priory Heath & St John's, and the East Suffolk wards of Carlford & Fynn Valley, Eastern Felixstowe, Kesgrave, Martlesham & Purdis Valley, Orwell Villages, Rushmere St Andrew, and Western Felixstowe.

Central Suffolk & North Ipswich disappears.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 14, 2021 14:47:36 GMT greenhert said:

My plan for Norfolk/Suffolk:

1. North Norfolk (72,767). Gains Walsingham ward (necessary to get Broadland into quota).
2. North West Norfolk (70,536). Adjusted to new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged.
3. Great Yarmouth (70,077). Unchanged.
4. South West Norfolk (74,941). Adjusted to new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged.
5. Broadland (75,034). Loses Walsingham ward in North Norfolk.
6. Dereham (73,279). Succeeds Mid Norfolk. Loses all Wymondham wards.
7. Wymondham (70,575). Succeeds South Norfolk. Loses Beck Vale, Dickleburgh & Sole, Bressingham & Burston, Diss & Roydon, Harleston and Old Costessey wards, and gains all Wymondham wards.
8. Norwich North (74,086). Gains Thorpe Hamlet ward.
9. Norwich South (73,515). Loses Thorpe Hamlet ward in Norwich, gains Old Costessey ward in South Norfolk.
10. Stowmarket & Diss (76,808). New seat. Contains all Mid Suffolk wards except for Elmswell & Woolpit, Fressingfield, Onehouse, Rattlesden, Rickinghall, Stradbroke & Laxfield, Thurston, and Walsham-le-Willows, and the South Norfolk wards of Beck Vale, Dickleburgh & Sole, Bressingham & Burston, Diss & Roydon, and Harleston.
11. Bury St Edmunds (71,279). Loses within the Mid Suffolk the area around Stowmarket and Needham Market and also Bacton and Gislingham wards, gains within West Suffolk the wards of Bamingham, Bardwell, Barrow, Ixworth, Risby, and Stanton.
12. West Suffolk (69,879). Loses the wards of Bamingham, Bardwell, Barrow, Ixworth, Risby, and Stanton.
13. Babergh (71,070). Succeeds South Suffolk. Loses villages in West Suffolk and thus becomes coterminous with Babergh district.
14. Lowestoft (70,418). Succeeds Waveney. Loses Bungay & Wainford and Kessingland wards.
15. Woodbridge (72,684). Succeeds Suffolk Coastal. Loses area around Felixstowe, and gains the Mid Suffolk wards of Fressingfield and Stradbroke & Laxfield, and gains the East Suffolk wards of Bungay & Wainford, Framlingham, Kessingland, and Wickham Market.
16. Ipswich West (74,081). Succeeds Ipswich. Loses Bixley, Priory Heath and St John's wards, and gains Castle Hill, Whitehouse, and Whitton wards.
17. Felixstowe & Ipswich East (72,337). New seat. Contains the Ipswich wards of Bixley, Priory Heath & St John's, and the East Suffolk wards of Carlford & Fynn Valley, Eastern Felixstowe, Kesgrave, Martlesham & Purdis Valley, Orwell Villages, Rushmere St Andrew, and Western Felixstowe.

Central Suffolk & North Ipswich disappears.

I don't think change to Ipswich is realistic, but if you were going to do it then I'd swap Priory Heath and Rushmere, as the latter forms a natural grouping with Bixley and St Johns, whereas the former fits best with Gainsborough ward.

[islington]

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 14, 2021 16:33:29 GMT islington said:

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

Relative to my plan, I think your keeping Walkern in NE Herts rather than moving it into Stevenage is an improvement. I'll leave it at that..

[mattb]

Jan 14, 2021 16:33:29 GMT islington said:

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

So much unnecessary dislocation just to keep Hertsmere intact (when it's not even a place anyway).
I know the ward names don't necessarily help but in terms of real communities your plan unnecessarily splits the town of Hatfield, the South Oxhey estate and the community Bricket Wood (whereas splitting Bushey North from the other Bushey wards actually works fine on the ground).
The cross-county seat should definitely be centred on Hitchin - all those places around Arlesley and Stotfold see Hitchin as their natural centre anyway. There are no effective links between Dunstable and Berkhamsted.
And that mid-Beds (or whatever you've called it) is just awful !

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 14, 2021 16:33:29 GMT islington said:

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

Rather than putting Welham Green into St Albans, why not put Northaw & Cuffley in South Hertfordshire? Welwyn Hatfield could then stay unchanged and optionally Sandridge could then go into St Albans.

[greenhert]

Jan 14, 2021 16:33:29 GMT islington said:

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

Generally a good plan, but the crossing of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire should occur elsewhere to minimise disruption to Luton and South Bedfordshire. Also Hitchin & Harpenden is not worth keeping due to a lack of connectivity between the two.

Instead my Bedfordshire constituencies (aside from Bedford which should rightly be left unchanged as you have said) would be:

1. Biggleswade (76,319). Succeeds North East Bedfordshire. Loses Stotfold & Langford and Arlesey wards.
2. Ampthill (71,748). Succeeds Mid Bedfordshire. Has been carefully redrawn to not take any part of North East Bedfordshire; loses Shefford to Hitchin & Stotfold.
3. Leighton Buzzard & Dunstable (73,143). Succeeds South West Bedfordshire. Loses Houghton Regis area to Luton North & Houghton Regis and gains area in Caddington ward previously in Luton South.
4. Luton South (73,480). Loses area currently in Central Bedfordshire, gains Saints ward in Luton.
5. Luton North & Houghton Regis (70,909). Loses Saints ward in Luton and gains the Central Bedfordshire wards of Houghton Hall, Parkside and Tithe Farm.
6. Hitchin & Stotfold (72,112). Succeeds Hitchin & Harpenden in practice. Loses all its St Albans wards and gains the Central Bedfordshire wards of Arlesey, Shefford, and Stotfold & Langford.

And thus my alternative Hertfordshire constituency containing Harpenden would be:

1. Berkhamsted, Tring & Harpenden (71,635). New seat. Contains the Dacorum wards of Aldbury & Wigginton, Ashridge, Berkhamsted (all), Northchurch, Tring (all), and Watling, and the St Albans wards of Harpenden (all), Redbourn, Sandridge, and Wheathampstead.
2. Other Hertfordshire constituencies would remain the same as yours, although I would rename Broxbourne South East Hertfordshire (to account for the inclusion of three wards in East Hertfordshire) and keep the name of Hertsmere on the grounds of the district and constituency still being coterminous.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 14, 2021 17:30:29 GMT greenhert said:

Jan 14, 2021 16:33:29 GMT islington said:

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

Generally a good plan, but the crossing of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire should occur elsewhere to minimise disruption to Luton and South Bedfordshire. Also Hitchin & Harpenden is not worth keeping due to a lack of connectivity between the two.

Instead my Bedfordshire constituencies (aside from Bedford which should rightly be left unchanged as you have said) would be:

1. Biggleswade (76,319). Succeeds North East Bedfordshire. Loses Stotfold & Langford and Arlesey wards.
2. Ampthill (71,748). Succeeds Mid Bedfordshire. Has been carefully redrawn to not take any part of North East Bedfordshire; loses Shefford to Hitchin & Stotfold.
3. Leighton Buzzard & Dunstable (73,143). Succeeds South West Bedfordshire. Loses Houghton Regis area to Luton North & Houghton Regis and gains area in Caddington ward previously in Luton South.
4. Luton South (73,480). Loses area currently in Central Bedfordshire, gains Saints ward in Luton.
5. Luton North & Houghton Regis (70,909). Loses Saints ward in Luton and gains the Central Bedfordshire wards of Houghton Hall, Parkside and Tithe Farm.
6. Hitchin & Stotfold (72,112). Succeeds Hitchin & Harpenden in practice. Loses all its St Albans wards and gains the Central Bedfordshire wards of Arlesey, Shefford, and Stotfold & Langford.

And thus my alternative Hertfordshire constituency containing Harpenden would be:

1. Berkhamsted, Tring & Harpenden (71,635). New seat. Contains the Dacorum wards of Aldbury & Wigginton, Ashridge, Berkhamsted (all), Northchurch, Tring (all), and Watling, and the St Albans wards of Harpenden (all), Redbourn, Sandridge, and Wheathampstead.
2. Other Hertfordshire constituencies would remain the same as yours, although I would rename Broxbourne South East Hertfordshire (to account for the inclusion of three wards in East Hertfordshire) and keep the name of Hertsmere on the grounds of the district and constituency still being coterminous.

I think he was taking the piss..

[islington]

Jan 14, 2021 17:28:04 GMT mattb said:

Jan 14, 2021 16:33:29 GMT islington said:

Pete Whitehead posted upthread a good plan for 18 seats in Herts and Beds, but here's an alternative take:

Bedford - 70068. Unchanged except for alignment with new wards.

North Bedfordshire - 73081. The only seat to cross the boundary between Bedford and C Beds UAs.

Biggleswade and Ampthill - 73330.

Leighton Buzzard - 71000.

Luton North - 70909.

Luton South - 73480

Dunstable and Berkhamsted - 70953. The county-straddling seat.

Hemel Hempstead - 70496.

South West Hertfordshire - 71876. Two orphan wards aren't great but it's a lot more compact than the current seat.

Watford - 70020.

South Hertfordshire - 74114. Unchanged apart from getting rid of the absurd name Hertsmere.

St Albans - 70626. Loses St Stephen; gains Welham Green (the latter not a natural addition but there are road links and it has to go somewhere).

Welwyn Hatfield - 74164. It absorbs Northaw (squeezed out of Broxbourne) so it must lose a ward to stay within range. On the whole Welham Green seems the least bad option, although it involves hiving off a few southern parts of Hatfield proper. But the obvious alternative, Hatfield Villages, would be much worse.

Hitchin and Harpenden - 76593. Unchanged.

Stevenage - 70370. Unchanged.

North East Hertfordshire - 76849. Unchanged.

Hertford and Stortford - 75396. Loses its three southern wards to get within range.

Broxbourne - 75454.

So much unnecessary dislocation just to keep Hertsmere intact (when it's not even a place anyway).
I know the ward names don't necessarily help but in terms of real communities your plan unnecessarily splits the town of Hatfield, the South Oxhey estate and the community Bricket Wood (whereas splitting Bushey North from the other Bushey wards actually works fine on the ground).
The cross-county seat should definitely be centred on Hitchin - all those places around Arlesley and Stotfold see Hitchin as their natural centre anyway. There are no effective links between Dunstable and Berkhamsted.
And that mid-Beds (or whatever you've called it) is just awful !

Thanks to all for feedback.

My thinking was that seats in central and east Herts are mostly within range, or, if not, reasonably close; whereas we have to deal with the oversize Watford in west Herts plus oversize seats in Beds. So I thought I'd have a go at concentrating the disruption in areas where there are going to have to be a lot of changes anyway, while leaving east and central Herts unchanged except for shuffling a few marginal wards here and there. On the whole I think I achieved this.

A Hitchin-based cross-county seat means disrupting a seat that is currently within range and can be left alone; the link between Hitchin and Harpenden is now well-established and, while I agree links between the towns aren't great, they are definitely better than Harpenden's links with Berkhamsted and Tring.

Hertsmere is within range and coterminous with its district so it has strong claims to be left alone. And Northaw is not a particularly good fit with it anyway; most of the inhabitants of that ward live in the so-called village (more like a small town) of Cuffley, which looks east to Cheshunt and would far better have stayed in Broxbourne. But since that's not possible, I've at least kept the ward in with its home district.

Carpenders Park ward is already in Watford, and the railway line that forms its western boundary is already a constituency boundary (most of the way). The boundary I'm suggesting is certainly no worse than the existing one in this area.

St Albans and Welham Green is, I agree, a marriage of (in)convenience.

[mattb]

Jan 14, 2021 18:04:02 GMT islington said:

Jan 14, 2021 17:28:04 GMT mattb said:

So much unnecessary dislocation just to keep Hertsmere intact (when it's not even a place anyway).
I know the ward names don't necessarily help but in terms of real communities your plan unnecessarily splits the town of Hatfield, the South Oxhey estate and the community Bricket Wood (whereas splitting Bushey North from the other Bushey wards actually works fine on the ground).
The cross-county seat should definitely be centred on Hitchin - all those places around Arlesley and Stotfold see Hitchin as their natural centre anyway. There are no effective links between Dunstable and Berkhamsted.
And that mid-Beds (or whatever you've called it) is just awful !

Thanks to all for feedback.

My thinking was that seats in central and east Herts are mostly within range, or, if not, reasonably close; whereas we have to deal with the oversize Watford in west Herts plus oversize seats in Beds. So I thought I'd have a go at concentrating the disruption in areas where there are going to have to be a lot of changes anyway, while leaving east and central Herts unchanged except for shuffling a few marginal wards here and there. On the whole I think I achieved this.

A Hitchin-based cross-county seat means disrupting a seat that is currently within range and can be left alone; the link between Hitchin and Harpenden is now well-established and, while I agree links between the towns aren't great, they are definitely better than Harpenden's links with Berkhamsted and Tring.

Hertsmere is within range and coterminous with its district so it has strong claims to be left alone. And Northaw is not a particularly good fit with it anyway; most of the inhabitants of that ward live in the so-called village (more like a small town) of Cuffley, which looks east to Cheshunt and would far better have stayed in Broxbourne. But since that's not possible, I've at least kept the ward in with its home district.

Carpenders Park ward is already in Watford, and the railway line that forms its western boundary is already a constituency boundary (most of the way). The boundary I'm suggesting is certainly no worse than the existing one in this area.

St Albans and Welham Green is, I agree, a marriage of (in)convenience.

Fair points to an extent (and the Commission may well share your thinking (!)).
If the boundary of Carpenders Park ward were still along the railway (as per the existing constituency boundary) your argument there would be stronger.
Don't accept your point about Cuffley - it is equidistant between Cheshunt and Potters Bar and the people who live there would definitely not see themselves as anything to do with Cheshunt (!). In fact (like most places in Herts) I suspect it's natural communication links are actually along the railway (i.e. into London or up to Hertford). It is certainly bizarre that it is in Wel-Hat council.

[Pete Whitehead]

I'll add to what Matt said that Biggleswade and Sandy are closely linked along with satellites like Potton. You've removed all of Biggleswade's hinterland to link it with Ampthill with which it has no connection and at the same time separated Ampthill from Flitwick when those towns virtually run into one another.

The railway line is not any longer the western boundary of Carpdenders Park (if it was there would be a much stronger case for retaining it as the sole non borough seat in Watford) but cuts into South Oxhey.
The addition of Northaw & Cuffley to Hertsmere is not ideal but it does have some links to Potters Bar. Welham Green would have been preferable if that ward hadn't annexed part of Hatfield - otherwise I would have proposed moving that into Hertsmere (and Northaw to WH).
But that didn't stop you putting it in St Albans - a part of Hatfield that is not connected to St Albans and a village on the other side of the A1 tenuously connected by some country lane to Roestock which is itself a peripheral and disconnected part of St Albans. When you say that Hatfield Villages would be a far worse option you reveal your ignorance of what the area is like on the ground. This ward is separated from the rest of Hatfield by the A1 and mostly consists of newer developments with the old Ellenbrook running almost seamlessley into Smallford in St Albans district - the main road between the two towns runs into this ward (clue - its called St Albans Road in Hatfield and Hatfield Road in St Albans). If you had to move a Hatfield ward in with St Albans that would be the one to move - but you don't have to, so don't.
You talk about leaving seats alone when they're in quota when it comes to Hitchin & Harpenden but are happy to carve up a perfectly logically drawn St Albans (adding an orphan ward from Welwyn Hatfield, making an orphan of St Stephen and splitting Bricket Wood in the process. That's absurd. Hitchin & Harpenden has always been a ridiculous seat which was made necessary by the numbers at the time it was drawn. When the numbers no longer necessitate it then it should be changed, especially if keeping them in place creates all kinds of other poor boundaries elsewhere. Your insistence that crap boundaries should remain in place just because they have been established by a previous review and the numbers may still work actually discredits your whole approach to this process.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Here's my attempt at East Anglia, with a less awkward crossing than the one that people are fumbling to the name Bungay over:

1 Lowestoft 73967 Yes
2 Suffolk Coastal 71004 Yes
3 Ipswich East and Felixstowe 71552 Yes
4 Ipswich 72828 Yes
5 South Suffolk 71070 Yes
6 Eye 75203 Yes
7 Bury St Edmund's 71827 Yes
8 Newmarket and Thetford 73961 Yes
9 South West Norfolk 75513 Yes
10 North West Norfolk 75200 Yes
11 North Norfolk 70719 Yes
12 Broadland 72619 Yes
13 Mid Norfolk 72723 Yes
14 South Norfolk 70020 Yes
15 Great Yarmouth 70077 Yes
16 Norwich South 73301 Yes
17 Norwich North 71729 Yes

[islington]

Don't feel you have to hold back, Pete: speak your mind.

Regarding Biggleswade/Ampthill/N Beds, I was simply trying to get rid of the existing double-cross of the UA boundary but plenty of other arrangements are possible in this area and I wouldn't go to the stake over it.

Regarding the Herts elements of the plan, though, I'm digging in.

The southern part of Three Rivers is more like an extension of north London than anything else, and it's unavoidable that boundaries will divide built-up areas. The numbers work if you take Oxhey Hall ward instead, if it makes you feel better.

The areas covered by Hatfield Villages ward are definitely an integral part of the town of Hatfield. The A1(M) is nothing like such a major barrier as it seems on the map because it goes through a tunnel at this point - you could wander through the shopping mall that sits on top and not know the motorway was there. Welham Green, by contrast, is a separate place: putting it into St Albans is, I agree, less than ideal, not least because the ward does indeed contain a chunk of Hatfield proper at the northern end; but it's definitely better than Hatfield Villages.

You've pointed out that Harpenden doesn't link very well with Hitchin, which is true; but then you propose to link it instead with Berkhamsted and Tring, which lie far off to the west with the little matter of Hemel Hempstead in the way. This is far worse than the admittedly unfortunate (but marginal) changes I was forced to make to St Albans.

Cuffley's links, as mattb says, really run north-south along the railway line but there are no plausible options in those directions. Children from Cuffley go to secondary school in Cheshunt so there's a real connection there; but a constituency link is no longer possible because of the need to expand Broxbourne to the north. So the best available link is with WGC and Hatfield, with which Cuffley at least shares a district; unlike Potters Bar, with which it shares nothing.

In case you haven't guessed by now, I used to live in Herts and it's a county I know well.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 14, 2021 19:23:56 GMT islington said:

Don't feel you have to hold back, Pete: speak your mind.

Regarding Biggleswade/Ampthill/N Beds, I was simply trying to get rid of the existing double-cross of the UA boundary but plenty of other arrangements are possible in this area and I wouldn't go to the stake over it.

Regarding the Herts elements of the plan, though, I'm digging in.

The southern part of Three Rivers is more like an extension of north London than anything else, and it's unavoidable that boundaries will divide built-up areas. The numbers work if you take Oxhey Hall ward instead, if it makes you feel better.

The areas covered by Hatfield Villages ward are definitely an integral part of the town of Hatfield. The A1(M) is nothing like such a major barrier as it seems on the map because it goes through a tunnel at this point - you could wander through the shopping mall that sits on top and not know the motorway was there. Welham Green, by contrast, is a separate place: putting it into St Albans is, I agree, less than ideal, not least because the ward does indeed contain a chunk of Hatfield proper at the northern end; but it's definitely better than Hatfield Villages.

You've pointed out that Harpenden doesn't link very well with Hitchin, which is true; but then you propose to link it instead with Berkhamsted and Tring, which lie far off to the west with the little matter of Hemel Hempstead in the way. This is far worse than the admittedly unfortunate (but marginal) changes I was forced to make to St Albans.

Cuffley's links, as mattb says, really run north-south along the railway line but there are no plausible options in those directions. Children from Cuffley go to secondary school in Cheshunt so there's a real connection there; but a constituency link is no longer possible because of the need to expand Broxbourne to the north. So the best available link is with WGC and Hatfield, with which Cuffley at least shares a district; unlike Potters Bar, with which it shares nothing.

In case you haven't guessed by now, I used to live in Herts and it's a county I know well.

I do still live in Hertfordshire and have done most of my 50 years, including a stint living in Hatfield which I know well. Your point about the A1 running underground is irrelevant because the old A1 still exists and it remains the case that it represents a very clear boundary between the new town developments to the East and the largely 21st century developments to the West, whereas that which cuts out a portion of South Hatfield runs through the middle of streets and through people's back gardens. So if you were going to detach part of Hatfield it would absolutely make more sense to detach Hatfield villages, but note I am not advocating that.
I find it baffling that the arguments you put forward about Cuffley sharing a district with Welwyn Hatfield count for nothing when it comes to St Stephen or Carpenders Park, the orphaning of which both involve splitting a distinct community (Bricket Wood and South Oxhey respectively and Oxhey Hall & Hayling would also do that). And I rather think that Welham Green & Hatfield South shares a district with Welwyn Hatfield as well but unlike in the case of Cuffley, detaching that also breaks up a natural community (South Hatfield)