YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 14, 2021 19:55:14 GMT
Well, I've never lived in Hertfordshire (or Bedfordshire) so will probably annoy both sides.  Basically I tend to agree that Northaw & Cuffley should go into Hertsmere (and making it no longer coterminous with the district gives an excuse to get rid of that name, which everyone seems to agree is bad); putting it into Welwyn Hatfield forces the removal of a much less peripheral ward, and the knock-on effects to St Albans seem bad as well, whereas Bushey North into Watford actually seems to make sense, in spite of the name of the ward. OTOH I think the numbers favour the western crossing of the county boundary, and don't see the argument for putting Harpenden with Berkhamsted instead of Hitchin, even if the latter link isn't that strong. My map in Bedfordshire is different, though, with a Biggleswade constituency covering that town and its hinterland (but also only crosses the Bedford/C Beds border once). |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 14, 2021 20:04:42 GMT
Well, I've never lived in Hertfordshire (or Bedfordshire) so will probably annoy both sides. Basically I tend to agree that Northaw & Cuffley should go into Hertsmere (and making it no longer coterminous with the district gives an excuse to get rid of that name, which everyone seems to agree is bad); putting it into Welwyn Hatfield forces the removal of a much less peripheral ward, and the knock-on effects to St Albans seem bad as well, whereas Bushey North into Watford actually seems to make sense, in spite of the name of the ward. OTOH I think the numbers favour the western crossing of the county boundary, and don't see the argument for putting Harpenden with Berkhamsted instead of Hitchin, even if the latter link isn't that strong. My map in Bedfordshire is different, though, with a Biggleswade constituency covering that town and its hinterland (but also only crosses the Bedford/C Beds border once). If you're going to go for Dunstable as the bit of Beds that crosses over (and it's reasonable enough) then the suggestion East Anglian Lefty put forward a day or so ago makes much more sense. As has been noted there is no connection really between Dunstable and the Berko/Tring area - that there is little between that area and Harpenden is absolutely arguable, but does have the benefit that they are in the same county. But Harpenden and Redbourn are well connected via the M1 and the A5. It has the added benefit of putting Hitchin and Letchworth back in the same seat |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 14, 2021 21:00:28 GMT
Well, I've never lived in Hertfordshire (or Bedfordshire) so will probably annoy both sides. Basically I tend to agree that Northaw & Cuffley should go into Hertsmere (and making it no longer coterminous with the district gives an excuse to get rid of that name, which everyone seems to agree is bad); putting it into Welwyn Hatfield forces the removal of a much less peripheral ward, and the knock-on effects to St Albans seem bad as well, whereas Bushey North into Watford actually seems to make sense, in spite of the name of the ward. OTOH I think the numbers favour the western crossing of the county boundary, and don't see the argument for putting Harpenden with Berkhamsted instead of Hitchin, even if the latter link isn't that strong. My map in Bedfordshire is different, though, with a Biggleswade constituency covering that town and its hinterland (but also only crosses the Bedford/C Beds border once). This one looks live-with-able to me, though I still think the cross-county seat should be around Hitchin rather than Dunstable. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 8:21:16 GMT
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 If you've got a version of that leaves Ipswich unchanged and reorients Mid Suffolk accordingly then you'll probably have reverse-engineered the Tory counter-proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 8:49:52 GMT
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 If you've got a version of that leaves Ipswich unchanged and reorients Mid Suffolk accordingly then you'll probably have reverse-engineered the Tory counter-proposal. Like this?  Actually the Thetford/Newmarket link makes alot of sense - not in relation to Newmarket itself so much (but that's always going to be out on a limb, but Thetford links very well with Brandon and Mildenhall Also I think I earned a 10% bonus from someone.. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 15, 2021 8:57:53 GMT
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 If you've got a version of that leaves Ipswich unchanged and reorients Mid Suffolk accordingly then you'll probably have reverse-engineered the Tory counter-proposal. I tried and it's easy. Recreate EAL's SE Suffolk seat, leave Ipswich as is, and you're left with a Mid Suffolk seat based on Stowmarket and including the left-over Ipswich wards, and north of that a seat (reinforced by Kessingland to get it above the quota) for which we can reinstate the name Eye.
SE Suffolk (could be Woodbridge): 75172 Lowestoft: 70418 Ipswich: 75117 Mid Suffolk: 70908 Eye: 72939
Edited to add: Pete Whitehead beat me to it with virtually the same idea except for a few wards shifted at the margins.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 9:02:46 GMT
If you've got a version of that leaves Ipswich unchanged and reorients Mid Suffolk accordingly then you'll probably have reverse-engineered the Tory counter-proposal. Like this? Actually the Thetford/Newmarket link makes alot of sense - not in relation to Newmarket itself so much (but that's always going to be out on a limb, but Thetford links very well with Brandon and Mildenhall Also I think I earned a 10% bonus from someone.. Thetford and Newmarket is basically the A11 corridor, so it's not a daft idea. I don't like the ward boundaries and I think that Norwich in this map is clearly inferior to my version, but were I a Norwich Tory I could definitely see the appeal of a scheme like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 9:15:57 GMT
Like this? Actually the Thetford/Newmarket link makes alot of sense - not in relation to Newmarket itself so much (but that's always going to be out on a limb, but Thetford links very well with Brandon and Mildenhall Also I think I earned a 10% bonus from someone.. Thetford and Newmarket is basically the A11 corridor, so it's not a daft idea. I don't like the ward boundaries and I think that Norwich in this map is clearly inferior to my version, but were I a Norwich Tory I could definitely see the appeal of a scheme like this. I think a solution to this which keeps your Norwich plan with this is to take the five North Norfolk wards in and around Fakenham from Broadland into the Mid Norfolk (Dereham) seat and move Easton and Hethersett the other way |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 15, 2021 9:19:55 GMT
Well, I've never lived in Hertfordshire (or Bedfordshire) so will probably annoy both sides. Basically I tend to agree that Northaw & Cuffley should go into Hertsmere (and making it no longer coterminous with the district gives an excuse to get rid of that name, which everyone seems to agree is bad); putting it into Welwyn Hatfield forces the removal of a much less peripheral ward, and the knock-on effects to St Albans seem bad as well, whereas Bushey North into Watford actually seems to make sense, in spite of the name of the ward. OTOH I think the numbers favour the western crossing of the county boundary, and don't see the argument for putting Harpenden with Berkhamsted instead of Hitchin, even if the latter link isn't that strong. My map in Bedfordshire is different, though, with a Biggleswade constituency covering that town and its hinterland (but also only crosses the Bedford/C Beds border once). This one looks live-with-able to me, though I still think the cross-county seat should be around Hitchin rather than Dunstable. Having slept on it I'm happy to support YL's scheme. Beds is good; the placing of the cross-county seat means that eastern and central Herts can remain undisturbed apart from a handful of ward shifts; and while I still have misgivings about the treatment of Hertsmere I can't deny the consequential improvements to SW Herts, St Albans and WH. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 9:43:41 GMT
This one looks live-with-able to me, though I still think the cross-county seat should be around Hitchin rather than Dunstable. Having slept on it I'm happy to support YL's scheme. Beds is good; the placing of the cross-county seat means that eastern and central Herts can remain undisturbed apart from a handful of ward shifts; and while I still have misgivings about the treatment of Hertsmere I can't deny the consequential improvements to SW Herts, St Albans and WH. I could also live with this as a compromise (though like Matt I still prefer and will argue for a Hitchin based county crossing) - perhaps not having lived in Hertfordshire affords some advantage in terms of being shall we say, less emotionally invested. As far as your misgivings about Hertsmere go, I can tell you I am from 'Hertsmere' (though would naturally not put it that way as it is not a place) - from Bushey in fact and I can tell you I have no misgivings about splitting off North Bushey into the Watford seat (though if Watford could stand alone without it I'd sooner not do it of course, or if it could take Leavesden without leaving SW Herts short I should probably prefer that). But that ward on the ground is quite separate from the rest of Bushey with parts of the ward merging seamlessly into Oxhey and some areas being virtually in the centre of Watford. The Bushey Mill area is more connected to North Watford than to Bushey 'proper'. But then I got the impression you were more concerned about the treatment of Cuffley than of Bushey. I agree this is not ideal and would have preferred to use Welham Green for the purpose had it not been merged with part of South Hatfield (actually Brookmans Park is the best fit but that isn't possible either) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 15, 2021 11:17:36 GMT
Well, yes, to be honest, I still don't like the Cuffley arrangement and I'd be tempted to take Welham Green instead despite what I agree would be a terrible boundary in the south Hatfield area.
But I don't want to sound a note of discord in the universal peace and harmony that seems to have broken out thanks to YL.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 11:39:49 GMT
Thetford and Newmarket is basically the A11 corridor, so it's not a daft idea. I don't like the ward boundaries and I think that Norwich in this map is clearly inferior to my version, but were I a Norwich Tory I could definitely see the appeal of a scheme like this. I think a solution to this which keeps your Norwich plan with this is to take the five North Norfolk wards in and around Fakenham from Broadland into the Mid Norfolk (Dereham) seat and move Easton and Hethersett the other way I think there's a neater solution - just put Attleborough back in Mid Norfolk and swap some of the wards west of Dereham into SW Norfolk:  I've also tidied up one or two other odd ward boundaries from 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️'s map, but it's still basically as he had it. The cross-border seat is certainly superior and I have no strong objection to any of the other seats, so this might actually be on its way to becoming my preferred solution. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 15, 2021 12:14:01 GMT
This was my (not dissimilar) varient:  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 12:30:49 GMT
This was my (not dissimilar) varient: I think if you're going to have a SE Suffolk seat like that, you might as well bite the bullet and swap Ipswich wards around. But there's no real problem with putting Stowmarket in the same seat as NW Ipswich or Woodbridge in the same seat as Felixstowe and Kesgrave, so it feels a little unnecessary anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 15, 2021 13:04:39 GMT
Which Norfolk-Suffolk crossing do you think the BCE will go for? Brandon-Thetford or North Suffolk-Diss?
The Brandon-Thetford (or "A11 corridor") crossing appears to be much more prudent given the better and shorter road links as well as having the railway link advantage of my Stowmarket & Diss proposal, and also the connection between Haverhill and Newmarket is not that good, which is why the now defunct Forest Heath district did not contain Haverhill but did contain Red Lodge in addition to Newmarket.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 13:18:39 GMT
I could believe either, or (given it's the BCE) even some weird and wacky third option. Might be worth seeing which plan moves fewest electors, because that's probably as good a steer as anything.
Haverhill's links to Newmarket are indeed bad (and the quickest routes all go through Cambridgeshire), but to be honest they aren't great to Bury either. It's very obviously in the wrong county, but that's not going to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 13:33:05 GMT
Well, yes, to be honest, I still don't like the Cuffley arrangement and I'd be tempted to take Welham Green instead despite what I agree would be a terrible boundary in the south Hatfield area. But I don't want to sound a note of discord in the universal peace and harmony that seems to have broken out thanks to YL. The thing is, and where we are probably unreconcilable, is that you seem to have a determined attachment to the survival of Hitchin & Harpenden because it is a) 'established' and b) in quota (which is strangely in complete contrast to the approach you took to the seats in the Trafford/Wythensawe area btw). Whereas I wouldn't just see its dismemberment as a price worth paying for better boundaries elsewhere, or even as a happy by-product of changes made elsewhere, but as a highly desirable objective in its own right |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 15, 2021 15:10:14 GMT
I could believe either, or (given it's the BCE) even some weird and wacky third option. Might be worth seeing which plan moves fewest electors, because that's probably as good a steer as anything. Haverhill's links to Newmarket are indeed bad (and the quickest routes all go through Cambridgeshire), but to be honest they aren't great to Bury either. It's very obviously in the wrong county, but that's not going to change. Newmarket is in the wrong county, you mean. Newmarket UDC did try their level best to transfer to Cambridgeshire during the late 20th century. There is no third option for the BCE regarding the Norfolk-Suffolk cross-county constituency, since Great Yarmouth must stay intact and Waveney can only be shrunk to Lowestoft and Beccles. Either it crosses it at the border between Brandon & Thetford or the border between northern Suffolk and Diss. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 15:21:04 GMT
My weird and whacky third option is to add Bradwell and Lothingland from Great Yarmouth to Lowestoft thus restoring the county boundary in that area. Since Great Yarmouth constituency (which is coterminous with the borough) is in quota, this is not going to happen (which is not to say it 'must' stay intact, but that in practice it will) and I haven't bothered to draw up such a scheme
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 15, 2021 15:21:49 GMT
Well, yes, to be honest, I still don't like the Cuffley arrangement and I'd be tempted to take Welham Green instead despite what I agree would be a terrible boundary in the south Hatfield area. But I don't want to sound a note of discord in the universal peace and harmony that seems to have broken out thanks to YL. The thing is, and where we are probably unreconcilable, is that you seem to have a determined attachment to the survival of Hitchin & Harpenden because it is a) 'established' and b) in quota (which is strangely in complete contrast to the approach you took to the seats in the Trafford/Wythensawe area btw). Whereas I wouldn't just see its dismemberment as a price worth paying for better boundaries elsewhere, or even as a happy by-product of changes made elsewhere, but as a highly desirable objective in its own right Well, when I was trying, in the NW thread, to get rid of the frankly outrageous current treatment of Sale, other posters put me firmly back in my box on the grounds that (i) the boundary in question already exists, and (ii) it has survived previous reviews, and (iii) both the seats involved are within range; so I should let well alone.
I have reluctantly accepted this.
Well, I'm not saying Hitch & Harp is an ideal seat, far from it, but (i) it already exists, and (ii) it has survived previous reviews, and (iii) it is within range.
A further point is that Harpenden has to go somewhere and its most natural links are north to Luton and south to St Albans, neither of which is a practical proposition. I feel you're breaking its association with Hitchin on the grounds of the indifferent links between the two towns, only to associate it instead with places like Berkhamsted and Tring with which its links are far weaker.
|
|
