Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,729
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 13, 2024 13:39:08 GMT
If you think Cambridge has a bad local authority boundary then I don’t know what you would say about Norwich. In practice Cambridge expansion is much less of a problem than might appear because there are joint planning arrangements with South Cambridgeshire district council which basically work well. Norwich includes quite a length of the banks of the Yare downstream from the city, which certainly looks peculiar until you realise what's going on. Bristol, however, includes an area of the Mouth of the Severn defined by various rocks in the river, which also looks odd. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 13, 2024 13:51:00 GMT
If you think Cambridge has a bad local authority boundary then I don’t know what you would say about Norwich. . You’ve opened up a can of worms there! I feel Nottingham and Manchester are also too tightly drawn as well (probably best for another thread!). Leeds is just right. Even Oxford is actually just right, perhaps Kennington and Kidlington could be absorbed but there is a sliver of green space separating them from Oxford so a clear boundary. Just a handful of houses to the north east of Headington which need to be added. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by YL on Jul 13, 2024 14:16:00 GMT
If you think Cambridge has a bad local authority boundary then I don’t know what you would say about Norwich. . You’ve opened up a can of worms there! I feel Nottingham and Manchester are also too tightly drawn as well (probably best for another thread!). Leeds is just right. Even Oxford is actually just right, perhaps Kennington and Kidlington could be absorbed but there is a sliver of green space separating them from Oxford so a clear boundary. Just a handful of houses to the north east of Headington which need to be added. Indeed, Cambridge is far from the only city which I think could do with an external boundary review, but the state of its boundary, which has a lot to do with recent developments which cross it, has a particular effect on the boundaries of this constituency. Leeds I think is actually a bit loose, in particular regarding Wetherby. Oxford is indeed pretty good, I think partly because it was actually reviewed relatively recently (early 1990s?). |
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Jul 13, 2024 14:16:59 GMT
As a Leeds resident myself, I think the city's boundaries are mostly fine, but agree that Wetherby probably should be in North Yorkshire. Maybe Otley too, but in my experience people in Otley are a lot more likely to say they actually live in Leeds vs people in Wetherby (who are unjustifiably snobby considering the town is really quite plain and unremarkable compared to the more picturesque Otley - plus Otley has a Waitrose and Wetherby doesn't, so ha).
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 13, 2024 14:25:10 GMT
If you think Cambridge has a bad local authority boundary then I don’t know what you would say about Norwich. In practice Cambridge expansion is much less of a problem than might appear because there are joint planning arrangements with South Cambridgeshire district council which basically work well. Norwich includes quite a length of the banks of the Yare downstream from the city, which certainly looks peculiar until you realise what's going on.. The Yare bit is not the problem with the boundaries of Norwich. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Jul 13, 2024 15:45:08 GMT
If you think Cambridge has a bad local authority boundary then I don’t know what you would say about Norwich. You’ve opened up a can of worms there! I feel Nottingham and Manchester are also too tightly drawn as well (probably best for another thread!). Leeds is just right. Very true about Manchester that should have been broadened include Salford Quays, Stretford, Droylesden, Denton, Chadderton, etc. Birmingham was already large yet had Sutton Coldfield lumped on to it for very obvious party political issues. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 13, 2024 15:58:10 GMT
I think in the Almanac entry for this someone proposed potential Cambridge North/South constituencies for a future review given the population growth and now 16 year olds getting the vote. Isn’t it also that Labour want to base reviews on population and not the electorate? In which case could these boundaries just be for one term?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Jul 13, 2024 16:20:50 GMT
I think in the Almanac entry for this someone proposed potential Cambridge North/South constituencies for a future review given the population growth and now 16 year olds getting the vote. Isn’t it also that Labour want to base reviews on population and not the electorate? In which case could these boundaries just be for one term? Will there be time for a full constituency review, especially one based on population, before the next election? That will presumably require primary legislation before the boundaries commission even start work. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 13, 2024 20:56:08 GMT
I think in the Almanac entry for this someone proposed potential Cambridge North/South constituencies for a future review given the population growth and now 16 year olds getting the vote. Isn’t it also that Labour want to base reviews on population and not the electorate? In which case could these boundaries just be for one term? Will there be time for a full constituency review, especially one based on population, before the next election? That will presumably require primary legislation before the boundaries commission even start work. Any review based on population needs a proper population count to base it on specifically done with this in mind - so would be after the next census, so wouldn't affect any election until at least around 2035. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 16, 2024 13:32:15 GMT
Norwich includes quite a length of the banks of the Yare downstream from the city, which certainly looks peculiar until you realise what's going on.. The Yare bit is not the problem with the boundaries of Norwich. The northern boundary of Norwich has made no sense for a long time, but on the ground it's less of a problem than it could have been - a couple of streets in New Costessey are in Wensum ward, but otherwise it at least follows roads and divisions between estates. Similarly, the northern boundary mostly follows the ring road. The extension to take in Catton Grove is deeply stupid-looking, but it mostly matches up to the present road layout, and the Heartsease Estate is all within Norwich. The couple of points where the boundary deviates from the northern ring road do appear to cause problems on the ground and I presume this is due to infill development. In general I think it's probably useful to distinguish between stupid boundaries and problematic boundaries. Stupid boundaries separate areas that clearly should go together, but do so in a way that at least follows observable lines and doesn't necessarily preclude effective administration. Problematic boundaries separate areas in a way that just isn't obvious on the ground and are almost bound to lead to administrative confusion. Both should be fixed, but it's the latter that are slightly more urgent and I'd argue more of Cambridge's are problematic because they generally involve new estates being built over boundaries that used to be open space, whereas Norwich's stupid boundaries are about following what the city edge once was and not accounting for new development that happened beyond the boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 16, 2024 14:59:51 GMT
The Yare bit is not the problem with the boundaries of Norwich. The northern boundary of Norwich has made no sense for a long time, but on the ground it's less of a problem than it could have been - a couple of streets in New Costessey are in Wensum ward, but otherwise it at least follows roads and divisions between estates. Similarly, the northern boundary mostly follows the ring road. The extension to take in Catton Grove is deeply stupid-looking, but it mostly matches up to the present road layout, and the Heartsease Estate is all within Norwich. The couple of points where the boundary deviates from the northern ring road do appear to cause problems on the ground and I presume this is due to infill development. In general I think it's probably useful to distinguish between stupid boundaries and problematic boundaries. Stupid boundaries separate areas that clearly should go together, but do so in a way that at least follows observable lines and doesn't necessarily preclude effective administration. Problematic boundaries separate areas in a way that just isn't obvious on the ground and are almost bound to lead to administrative confusion. Both should be fixed, but it's the latter that are slightly more urgent and I'd argue more of Cambridge's are problematic because they generally involve new estates being built over boundaries that used to be open space, whereas Norwich's stupid boundaries are about following what the city edge once was and not accounting for new development that happened beyond the boundary. I'm not sure why we're discussing it in this thread, but Norwich is actually an example of the remarkable persistence of ancient boundaries. Most of the present municipal boundary is the same, or virtually the same, as that of the ancient county corporate. The exceptions are that the following areas have been added: New Sprowston; the delightfully-named Heartsease estate; the major northward spur including the airport; and the Bowthorpe area. The first of these is essentially a straightening-out of the ancient boundary, which strangely dipped Norwich-ward in this area so as to exclude New Sproston; the others are all genuine extensions and stand out very obviously on the map. These changes aside (and ignoring the curious extension down the Yare), the boundary is pretty much exactly as it was at the time of the Great Reform Act and for goodness knows how many centuries before that.
Edited to add: This isn't to dispute the argument that the boundaries of Norwich are overdue a substantial extension, and the same could be said of Cambridge, Reading, and many other towns.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 16, 2024 16:39:41 GMT
I've posted a map in the 'Historic constituency boundaries' thread showing the difference between the ancient boundary of Norwich, which was used for the 1885 Parliamentary boundaries, and the boundary of Norwich CB, which was used as the Parliamentary boundary in 1918. I've tagged parlconst because this means his map is wrong for 1885-1918. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,729
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Sept 7, 2024 18:20:22 GMT
With Daniel Kawczynski out of Parliament, is Ian Sollom now the tallest current MP?
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 7, 2024 4:30:45 GMT
With Daniel Kawczynski out of Parliament, is Ian Sollom now the tallest current MP? We need a 'giant of the house'. I believe you are correct. I know that the 2021 Chesham & Amersham Tory candidate would've been up there. Also, while we're on this thread, just call the seat 'Mid Cambridgeshire' or 'St Neots'. The latter is decidedly more meaningful and instructive vis-a-vis where the seat is. |
|
