|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 15, 2021 15:39:00 GMT
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.
The boundary review for 2010 noted that because no Hertfordshire constituency had experienced substantial growth during the period of 1993-2002, no major changes were required to any of its constituencies (only one or two wards were moved around between each constituency, if that), so naturally Hitchin & Harpenden was going to survive. Berkhamsted and Tring arguably have better links to Harpenden than they do to Chorleywood and Rickmansworth; after all, Berkhamsted and Tring used to share a constituency with Harpenden (and Hemel Hempstead). There does need to be a cross-county Herts/Beds seat and the area around Stotfold is the best place to make that crossing given how oversized Mid Bedfordshire and North East Bedfordshire are, hence Hitchin & Stotfold. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 15:46:03 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. Arguably Newmarket is in the wrong county, but it's linked to the rest of the county by two trunk roads and a railway line, so it's not exactly cut-off (and arguably if you were going to shift the county boundary, you'd be no worse off moving the bits of East Cambs east of Soham into Suffolk.) But Haverhill is definitely in the wrong county, because it looks to Cambridge way more than it looks to anywhere else in Suffolk, and given that half of it is made up of GLC overspill estates it's not like there's a particularly strong Suffolk identity round that way anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 15:47:32 GMT
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.
North to Luton is a practical proposition, though - not to Luton itself, but to Dunstable, which is functionally the same conurbation. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 15, 2021 16:03:10 GMT
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.
North to Luton is a practical proposition, though - not to Luton itself, but to Dunstable, which is functionally the same conurbation. That's fine for Harpenden - but the point is Berko & Tring have to go somewhere. Their only choices (unless you do some really weird things across SW Herts) are either Dunstable or Harpenden. Of those, Harpenden is by far the least-worst option. And if Harpenden's choices are either Berko/Tring or Hitchin then I would argue looking west makes more sense than Hitchin. So many things in Herts (e.g. all the NHS bodies, for example) are organised on a half-county basis with Harpenden clearly in the west and Hitchin clearly in the east. At the same time, if you have to have a cross-county seat, there are solid community links from Arlesley etc to Hitchin; and none from Dunstable to Berkhamsted. I accept Dunstable-Harpenden might be a plausible combo at least from a transport link point of view; but I don't think it is a plausible option for a scheme of constituencies within the constraints allowed? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 16:17:52 GMT
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.
North to Luton is a practical proposition, though - not to Luton itself, but to Dunstable, which is functionally the same conurbation. I'm coming round to your plan as a slightly better compromise though I would make a few changes 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 1) I would move Watling and Ashridge wards into the Dunstable & Harpenden seat to improve the shape and internal communications 2) Move Kings Langley to SW Herts (I'd rather not do that but its necessary to make room for 3) 3) Move Gade Valley and Abbots Langely & Bedmond to Hemel Hempstead * 4) Watford retakes Oxhey (and retains Leavesden as the extra required ward) 5) requires the splitting of Shenley with Shenley and Ridge parishes going into the Bushey & Elstree seat and South Mimms into Cheshunt & Potters Bar 6) Sandridge moves into St Albans (mostly built up St Albans suburbs) 7) I would slightly reconfigure the two seats in East Herts with the three wards around Sawbridgeworth going into East Hertfordshire and the five rural wards to the North and West of Hertford going into Hertford & Hoddesdon (this area being more or less the old Hertford Rural district). I don't care all that much about this amendment though. I suppose if we are splitting wards with abandon we might as well split the Abbots Langley wards which would enable the Bedmond & Primrose Hill area to join with Kings Langley in Hemel Hempstead with the part of Abbots Langley parish south of the M25 to remain with Watford which would be a more logical arrangement. That also enables Oxhey to return to the Bushey & Elstree seat facilitating better connections between Bushey and the Watford Rural element. That in turn would avoid the need to split Shenley (although I feel Shenley itself fits slightly better into that seat, while South Mimms should obviously be with Potters Bar) I also prefer YL's arrangement for the remainder of Bedfordshire, mainly because I don't like what you've done with Potton |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 16:51:13 GMT
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. I actually have a lot sympathy with your feelings about Sale and if a sensible approach could be found to reunite the town I would be all in favour of it, regardless of established boundaries or previous reviews. The main problem was that your proposal did not achieve that as it had the effect of splitting Altrincham almost as badly as Sale is split. Worse it had all the appearance of being a very clumsy attempted gerrymander which is something I think should be avoided. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,804 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 15, 2021 17:06:56 GMT
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. Arguably Newmarket is in the wrong county, but it's linked to the rest of the county by two trunk roads and a railway line, so it's not exactly cut-off (and arguably if you were going to shift the county boundary, you'd be no worse off moving the bits of East Cambs east of Soham into Suffolk.) But Haverhill is definitely in the wrong county, because it looks to Cambridge way more than it looks to anywhere else in Suffolk, and given that half of it is made up of GLC overspill estates it's not like there's a particularly strong Suffolk identity round that way anyway. And the "natural" boundary of the River Stour puts Haverhill in Cambridgeshire. In response to the "Newmarket is in the wrong country" thesis I did sketch up a map of countering that by putting bits of Cambridgeshire to the north into Suffolk. I think just Chippenham would be enough, but the south of Newmarket needs to swap over as well. The county boundary no longer runs along the pavement at one side of Newmarket High Street, but it still slices through the town. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 15, 2021 17:15:40 GMT
North to Luton is a practical proposition, though - not to Luton itself, but to Dunstable, which is functionally the same conurbation. I'm coming round to your plan as a slightly better compromise though I would make a few changes 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 1) I would move Watling and Ashridge wards into the Dunstable & Harpenden seat to improve the shape and internal communications 2) Move Kings Langley to SW Herts (I'd rather not do that but its necessary to make room for 3) 3) Move Gade Valley and Abbots Langely & Bedmond to Hemel Hempstead * 4) Watford retakes Oxhey (and retains Leavesden as the extra required ward) 5) requires the splitting of Shenley with Shenley and Ridge parishes going into the Bushey & Elstree seat and South Mimms into Cheshunt & Potters Bar 6) Sandridge moves into St Albans (mostly built up St Albans suburbs) 7) I would slightly reconfigure the two seats in East Herts with the three wards around Sawbridgeworth going into East Hertfordshire and the five rural wards to the North and West of Hertford going into Hertford & Hoddesdon (this area being more or less the old Hertford Rural district). I don't care all that much about this amendment though. I suppose if we are splitting wards with abandon we might as well split the Abbots Langley wards which would enable the Bedmond & Primrose Hill area to join with Kings Langley in Hemel Hempstead with the part of Abbots Langley parish south of the M25 to remain with Watford which would be a more logical arrangement. That also enables Oxhey to return to the Bushey & Elstree seat facilitating better connections between Bushey and the Watford Rural element. That in turn would avoid the need to split Shenley (although I feel Shenley itself fits slightly better into that seat, while South Mimms should obviously be with Potters Bar) I also prefer YL's arrangement for the remainder of Bedfordshire, mainly because I don't like what you've done with Potton Interesting. Definitely agree with you on Watling and Sandridge, have no particular objections to 7 and agree that YL's version of Bedfordshire is superior to mine. I think the chances of getting a ward split in Hertfordshire are small enough it's not worth proposing it and if you take out Oxhey then Bushey and South Oxhey lose their road link - if we agree it matters for Dunstable and Harpenden, it ought to for them as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 15, 2021 17:19:14 GMT
Arguably Newmarket is in the wrong county, but it's linked to the rest of the county by two trunk roads and a railway line, so it's not exactly cut-off (and arguably if you were going to shift the county boundary, you'd be no worse off moving the bits of East Cambs east of Soham into Suffolk.) But Haverhill is definitely in the wrong county, because it looks to Cambridge way more than it looks to anywhere else in Suffolk, and given that half of it is made up of GLC overspill estates it's not like there's a particularly strong Suffolk identity round that way anyway. And the "natural" boundary of the River Stour puts Haverhill in Cambridgeshire. In response to the "Newmarket is in the wrong country" thesis I did sketch up a map of countering that by putting bits of Cambridgeshire to the north into Suffolk. I think just Chippenham would be enough, but the south of Newmarket needs to swap over as well. The county boundary no longer runs along the pavement at one side of Newmarket High Street, but it still slices through the town. The only time there was a Newmarket parliamentary constituency it was a division of Cambridgeshire even though it only included a part of the town www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/bc_reports_1885/Cambridgeshire_1885en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newmarket_(UK_Parliament_constituency)It looks like the area I lived in was part of Cambridgeshire then |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Jan 15, 2021 21:25:00 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 It would be rather cruel as they are well on the way to assimilation now. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 16, 2021 15:51:26 GMT
This works on the old numbers and the new ones (can provide if requested). Nothing we haven't seen before here but it works well  (Stevenage and NE Herts don't require any change to meet quota but I've moved Walkern only to equalise electorates a bit) I hate to admit it but I'm kind of warming to Pete's plan here (apart from the unnecessary shift of Walkern, which I think he's rowed back on). |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 16, 2021 16:00:42 GMT
This works on the old numbers and the new ones (can provide if requested). Nothing we haven't seen before here but it works well (Stevenage and NE Herts don't require any change to meet quota but I've moved Walkern only to equalise electorates a bit) I hate to admit it but I'm kind of warming to Pete's plan here (apart from the unnecessary shift of Walkern, which I think he's rowed back on). Yes I wouldn't move that - it's unnecessary and looks worse on the map. It was only to equalise electorates and that isn't one of the objectives here. I would be tempted rather to move Tewin into Welwyn Hatfield to tidy up the map further but that would probably be hard to justify given it is also unnecessary for the numbers and creates another orphan ward (and Hertford & Stortford can't accommodate it) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2021 19:54:31 GMT
At each boundary review the Suffolk Coastal seat gets narrower. It makes you wonder whether the boundary commission is going to decide to have two seats in that area instead of one with more conventional shapes. Not as narrow as Dunwich got.. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 20, 2021 20:18:00 GMT
The Burton seat is also getting narrower as Burton and Uttoxeter expand population, such that fewer villages are required to get up to quota.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 20, 2021 20:24:34 GMT
At each boundary review the Suffolk Coastal seat gets narrower. It makes you wonder whether the boundary commission is going to decide to have two seats in that area instead of one with more conventional shapes. Pretty sure it'll be this time. The wards of Suffolk Coastal, plus the neighbouring wards necessary to trace a road link between them, come to a total electorate of 66k. Given that Waveney and CSNI need to shed electors, chances are we'll see one seat based in the southern part of the district and another taking in the northern end of the seat plus somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 21, 2021 11:45:42 GMT
Hitchin and Letchworth seems such an obvious seat, it's amazing how it hasn't happened before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 21, 2021 12:02:16 GMT
Hitchin and Letchworth seems such an obvious seat, it's amazing how it hasn't happened before. Well it has obviously happened before - for over a century between 1885 and 1997. I'm hopeful that at the review after this one Hertfordshire will be entitled to 12 seats on its own and then that arrangement can return (continued growth in East Herts means it's likely that Hertford and Ware will have to split off from Bishops Stortford which would then replace Letchworth in some version of a NE Herts seat) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 21, 2021 14:46:32 GMT
If you try to draw Hertfordshire with 12 seats of approximately equal population, that's exactly what happens: one seat each for Broxbourne, Hertsmere, Watford and Three Rivers; compact Stevenage, St Albans, Welwyn Hatfield and Hemel seats pretty similar to the current lines; a compact Hitchin-Letchworth seat; a Royston and Stortford seat; a Hertford seat grabbing a couple of wards from Welwyn; and a leftover Harpenden and west Hertfordshire seat. Doesn't even really require any change in population distribution within the county, just for Hertfordshire's electorate to grow slightly faster than the UK's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 21, 2021 17:09:09 GMT
First attempt at Herts (& Beds).  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 22, 2021 9:07:48 GMT
Just noticed the colours of the SW Beds and Harpenden seats are nearly the same.
|
|
