2023 Review - East of England

[Foggy]

I started this region in the combined authority for a tidy eight seats, and snaked my way around before ending it with a neat six-and-a-half seat Bedforshire. It's everything in between that's a bit of a mess.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE, HUNTINGDONSHIRE and the SOKE


Wisbech (70,386) Or Cambridgeshire North, succeeding Cambridgeshire North East. Sheds a whopping 17 wards, but takes in 8 wards from Peterborough UA, 5 of which are currently in the Peterborough constituency.
Peterborough (71,484) Radically redrawn but still completely within the local authority. Loses 5 wards to Cambridgeshire North/NE, gains 5 from Cambridgeshire NW/Hunts North that cover the Stanground and Orton areas. 
Huntingdonshire North & Whittlesey (76,520) Succeeds the misleadingly-named Cambridgeshire NW. Loses the aforementioned 8 wards to neighbouring seats plus Holywell to Hunts S, gains 5 wards from Cambs NE and 4 from Huntingdon including the town of Huntingdon itself. 
Huntingdonshire South (76,286) Succeeds Huntingdon but no longer includes the county town, Altonbury or the Stukeleys. Now covers only the St Neots, St Ives and Godmanchester areas. Gains Holywell. 
Ely (74,610) Or Mid Cambridgeshire, or Cambridgeshire Central. Also covers March and Soham. New seat made up of bits of existing Cambs SE and Cambs NE constituencies. All wards are in Fenland or East Cambs districts. 
Milton & Fordham (74,261) Or a continuing Cambridgeshire South East, since those settlements aren't particularly significant. Loses 7 wards to the new seat, gains Queen Edith's from Cambs S and Cherry Hinton from Cambridge, in addition to a further 4 rural wards from Cambs S. 
Cambridge (72,553) Loses Cherry Hinton, as noted above. 
Girton & Histon (75,147) Or Cambridgeshire South West, since it's the successor to Cambs S but has been pushed further west. Gains Histon and Impington ward as well as Over and Willingham. Loses Cottenham, Duxford, Sawston, Shelford and Queen Edith's. Is now entirely within South Cambs district. 

[Pete Whitehead]

That's quite similar to my plan which it has to be said didn't have many takers here. Obviously we both come at this from the same tradional counties mindset but it doens't even work in those terms (why put Whittlesey in with Northern Huntingdonshire when you can use wards from southern Peterborough (aka Northern Huntingdonshire) ?

Naming South Cambridgeshire after a couple of adjoining villages to the North of Cambridge, when it reaches to the borders of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex isn't at all Cambridge-centric of you of course..

[Andrew_S]

The boundary commission could save a lot of time and money by just visiting these threads and choosing whichever plan they like the most.

[andrewp]

Jan 24, 2021 10:53:49 GMT Andrew_S said:

The boundary commission could save a lot of time and money by just visiting these threads and choosing whichever plan they like the most.

I wonder if they look here?! The timely release of the population stats and the plans produced are a very timely distraction from the COVID/ lockdown focus. The plans produced here are better than anything that they will receive from elsewhere. 

[East Anglian Lefty]

Trying to decide if I hate the seats or the names more.

[Foggy]

Jan 24, 2021 8:58:12 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

That's quite similar to my plan which it has to be said didn't have many takers here. Obviously we both come at this from the same traditional counties mindset but it doens't even work in those terms (why put Whittlesey in with Northern Huntingdonshire when you can use wards from southern Peterborough (aka Northern Huntingdonshire)?

That's what I did at first, but it made the Ely seat utterly hideous. I now realise that if you start with Fenland instead of Huntingdonshire and prioritise treating the former as a standalone constituency, you'll end up with something quite different.

Naming South Cambridgeshire after a couple of adjoining villages to the North of Cambridge, when it reaches to the borders of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex isn't at all Cambridge-centric of you of course..

Ha, guilty as charged. I don't think the BCE will move back to using town names easily once they've established a 'county + compass direction' format for a seat for fear of lots of angry communications from residents of forgotten villages, but I can only do my small part to pull them back towards the right approach.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 24, 2021 18:32:36 GMT Foggy said:

Jan 24, 2021 8:58:12 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

That's quite similar to my plan which it has to be said didn't have many takers here. Obviously we both come at this from the same traditional counties mindset but it doens't even work in those terms (why put Whittlesey in with Northern Huntingdonshire when you can use wards from southern Peterborough (aka Northern Huntingdonshire)?

That's what I did at first, but it made the Ely seat utterly hideous. I now realise that if you start with Fenland instead of Huntingdonshire and prioritise treating the former as a standalone constituency, you'll end up with something quite different.

If you must put Whittlesey in with historic Huntingdonshire, stick it in the Peterborough seat, because at least it does have good links with Stanground (and it's got almost the same electorate as the two Orton wards.) The road via Pondersbridge is bad even by the standards of the Fens.

[Foggy]

Jan 24, 2021 19:43:03 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jan 24, 2021 18:32:36 GMT Foggy said:

That's what I did at first, but it made the Ely seat utterly hideous. I now realise that if you start with Fenland instead of Huntingdonshire and prioritise treating the former as a standalone constituency, you'll end up with something quite different.

If you must put Whittlesey in with historic Huntingdonshire, stick it in the Peterborough seat, because at least it does have good links with Stanground (and it's got almost the same electorate as the two Orton wards.) The road via Pondersbridge is bad even by the standards of the Fens.

Hmm, that could an interesting alternative avenue to explore.

Anyway, I managed to find a way to borrow Pete's suggestion without changing the Ely seat, and ended up with revised figures of 72,911 for Hunts North and 73,995 for Wisbech (or Cambs NE if you prefer). 

[Pete Whitehead]

I'm coming round to the East Anglian Lefty view of a Mid Cambridgeshire combining St Ives with Bar Hill etc, mainly because the North Cambridgeshire in mine and Foggy's plan is so ugly.
Can somebody clarify for me the position re: Cambridge's new ward electorates? On the current figures Cambridge is over quota while removing Trumpington brings it under quota. Removing Trumpington and adding Queen Edith works on the numbers we have but I gather may not on the new numbers. Is the suggestion that on the new numbers, the Cambridge constituency will need to exclude both Queen Ediths and Trumpington? (presumably as new Trumpington is smaller than old Trumpington and therefore removing it from the current seat would not bring it below quota). I have tried to find previous discussions about this but the search function is buggered on this site

Edit: Checking on the LGBCE site, it appears that the map of wards on Boundary Assistant do show the new wards so I understand there has been an error and the numbers given are for the old wards. Given that Trumpington is much reduced I assume this is correct that the shortfall indicated on BA by excluding Trumpington and Queen Ediths would not in fact occur. (also that Trumpington completely retreats from the City Centre so its removal becomes less undesirable than it would otherwise have been (leaving Cherry Hinton as perhaps a more logical ward to detach))

[East Anglian Lefty]

I emailed the ONS about the data, who said that Cambridge's ERO had been asked for the new ward electorates, but they would check whether that was what they actually got. Looking at the figures I'm reasonably sure it can't have been, but we'll see if it changes in February. I suspect if it doesn't and there is reason to believe it's incorrect then at least one of the political parties will probably question it further.

[YL]

The pattern of the numbers, not just Trumpington, strongly suggests that there has indeed been an error. Castle should be small, because it was deliberately drawn small to make room for the new "Eddington" development, but isn't small in the ONS data, and Market, Newnham and Petersfield, all of which took on significant areas in the review from Castle and Trumpington, are all undersized in the ONS data but should be about the same size as the others.

For this reason I chose to remove Cherry Hinton in my map, because it should give about the right numbers for two excluded wards whichever ones they happen to be. (I also don't think it's a terrible choice, at least if like me you're in the "doughnut" camp, because the Cherry Hinton area spills across the City boundary into Fen Ditton & Fulbourn, but Trumpington is obviously a reasonable choice as well.)

[Pete Whitehead]

The trouble is without knowing the numbers we should be dealing with in Cambridge also makes it difficult drawing the South Cambridgeshire seat (with knock on effects for East Cambridgeshire, Mid Cambridgeshire aso)

Looks like QE and CH are pretty well unchanged so makes sense to work with those wards

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 21, 2021 11:45:42 GMT Andrew_S said:

Hitchin and Letchworth seems such an obvious seat, it's amazing how it hasn't happened before.

I've just discovered that by rotating my proposed NE Herts and Hitchin seats you can do this and the numbers do work




I wouldn't recommend it because there is almost literally zero connection between the parts of Bedfordshire and the parts of Hertfordshire included (whereas those parts of Beds are well linked to Hitchin).
It almost makes me wish we were dealing with a Hertfordshire-Cambridgeshire crossing though as it would obviously make some sense to have a seat centred on Royston (and Heidi Allen is no longer around to come up with her fuckwitted counter-proposals)

[East Anglian Lefty]

In terms of which wards to remove, Trumpington is definitely the strongest candidate, for reasons of history and because Trumpington village still feels separate to Cambridge. There's an especially strong case now that Newtown and Accordia are no longer included in the ward. The Clay Farm development is new enough it doesn't really look to anywhere else in Cambridge, but it's all south of Long Road. The bits of the ward north of Long Road are a bit more of an edge case, but I'd put money on the bulk of the inhabitants there being snobbish enough to insist that they don't live in Cambridge, they live in Trumpington. They're built to quite a low density and definitely don't feel like they have much in common with Newtown. Trumpington also has the advantage that the southern parts of it fade relatively naturally into the northern end of Great Shelford.

In historical terms, Queen Ediths has the strongest claim to be separate, but then again it does feel odd not to have Addenbrookes in the Cambridge seat. I don't think there's anything very wrong about including it, but the northern boundary (essentially everywhere south of Cherry Hinton Road except the cul-de-sacs) works reasonably well so leaving it out again isn't a great problem either.

Cherry Hinton also has a bit of a village identity, but it's not as strong as Trumpington's and I personally couldn't tell you exactly where it begins (caveat: Cherry Hinton and Queen Ediths are the bits of the city I know least well, whereas I used to live in Trumpington.) It hasn't been in any seat other than Cambridge in living memory and there have been reasonably effective local campaigns against moving it out whenever it's been suggested - mostly by the QE Lib Dems, but even then the rest of the city Lib Dems haven't backed them, despite the obvious partisan benefit for them. On the other hand, it is probably the bit of the city where the city boundaries are most obviously at variance with electoral reality - if ward splitting were no issue, an ideal map would probably put Trumpington and QE in South Cambs, but add the Cherry Hinton bits of Fen Ditton & Fulbourn plus Chesterton Fen from Milton & Waterbeach. I do have half a mind to propose the latter of those, although with precisely no hope of anybody taking it seriously.

[John Chanin]

Jan 14, 2021 18:49:08 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

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

This map is very similar to what I have.  I appreciate the point about not changing Ipswich, but 3 eastern wards work much better than 3 northern wards, and I don’t think this is necessarily a non-starter.  I think Thetford and Newmarket can be improved though.  I have a slightly different arrangement.

[Andrew_S]

I think Neath West's Broadland seat above is a little too long and thin for comfort. I've been trying to avoid shapes like that if possible.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jan 27, 2021 19:43:15 GMT Andrew_S said:

I think Neath West's Broadland seat above is a little too long and thin for comfort. I've been trying to avoid shapes like that if possible.

It's practially unchanged from the existing seat ...

[John Chanin]

Reading through this, it reinforces my view that there are no really good solutions for Hertfordshire, but some of these are definitely better than mine, whereas some are worse. There is absolutely no point in retaining the poor Hitchin and Harpenden seat, and it is unnecessary, although pretty much all solutions in the south west of the county are crap for at least 1 seat. Harpenden and Tring? Absolutely not. I have constructed a seat which links it with Old Welwyn - putting Northaw & Cuffley into Welwyn Hatfield rather than Hertsmere, which seems more popular. I like the compact urban seat of Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock even though it makes the cross-county seat a bit of a monstrosity. Luckily you can link Stevenage with anything that is convenient. Bedfordshire is easy, and all the alternatives seem reasonable.

[John Chanin]

On Cambridgeshire I have St Neots linked with the north of South Cambridgeshire, rather than St Ives. This seems to make a reasonable seat, and leaves very obvious East and South Cambridgeshire seats. Minor adjustments will be necessary when we get the right Cambridge data.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 27, 2021 19:53:18 GMT John Chanin said:

Reading through this, it reinforces my view that there are no really good solutions for Hertfordshire, but some of these are definitely better than mine, whereas some are worse. There is absolutely no point in retaining the poor Hitchin and Harpenden seat, and it is unnecessary, although pretty much all solutions in the south west of the county are crap for at least 1 seat. Harpenden and Tring? Absolutely not. I have constructed a seat which links it with Old Welwyn - putting Northaw & Cuffley into Welwyn Hatfield rather than Hertsmere, which seems more popular. I like the compact urban seat of Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock even though it makes the cross-county seat a bit of a monstrosity. Luckily you can link Stevenage with anything that is convenient. Bedfordshire is easy, and all the alternatives seem reasonable.

So where is your cross-county seat? You've gone for the Dusntable/Berko/Tring option?