|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 19, 2016 9:27:57 GMT
You could also solve the Hertfordshire problem by treating all of the Hertsmere district except for Bushey as part of Greater London, to reduce Herts' quota entitlement to 10.04.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 19, 2016 9:57:06 GMT
You could also solve the Hertfordshire problem by treating all of the Hertsmere district except for Bushey as part of Greater London, to reduce Herts' quota entitlement to 10.04. Yes I suppose we could recreate the old pre-1974 Barnet and Enfield West seats, but then I think we are trying to deal in the art of the possible.. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 19, 2016 16:07:52 GMT
Thinking outside the box - Part 2
There is a way of avoiding crossing both the Norfolk/Cambs and Herts/Cambs borders. Simply put the two Littleport wards in East Cambridgeshire, add Fordham Villages and Cheveley to West Suffolk, then Chedburgh moves to South Suffolk to get everything in quota.
Due to the odd county borders in the Newmarket area I think there is a strong argument that if Cambridgeshire needs to lose a couple of wards somewhere, sending 2 wards that border Newmarket to Suffolk actually makes more sense than crossing either the Norfolk or Hertfordshire borders.
EDIT - No that's wrong, I forgot the three wards the BCE put in with Herts. I think it is still possible to pair Cambs and Suffolk but will require more change.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 19, 2016 16:35:16 GMT
Here is the correct 14 seat Cambs/Suffolk plan. Cambridge needs to take in Teversham as well and four Cambs wards transfer to a Suffolk seat.   |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 19, 2016 17:44:41 GMT
Part 3 - Going WAY outside the box
Review Peterborough with Northamptonshire for 8 seats. Rest of Cambridgeshire gets 6 seats then Herts, Suffolk and Norfolk can all stand alone. This also means there is no need to cross the Leics/Notts boundary.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 19, 2016 20:33:00 GMT
Part 3 - Going WAY outside the box Review Peterborough with Northamptonshire for 8 seats. Rest of Cambridgeshire gets 6 seats then Herts, Suffolk and Norfolk can all stand alone. This also means there is no need to cross the Leics/Notts boundary. by far the best option, I think that this is a absolutely fantastic idea |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 19, 2016 21:28:25 GMT
Part 3 - Going WAY outside the box Review Peterborough with Northamptonshire for 8 seats. Rest of Cambridgeshire gets 6 seats then Herts, Suffolk and Norfolk can all stand alone. This also means there is no need to cross the Leics/Notts boundary. Indeed, although since Peterborough has much better links with Lincolnshire (especially in public transport terms) amongst East Midlands counties (Lincolnshire seems rather isolated in an East Midlands context, I must say), I did not believe it would be a workable idea that I could get past the BCE.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 1, 2017 18:08:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 1, 2017 21:27:08 GMT
This map is only accessible if you grant permission via email-can you change the settings so that registered members of this forum can see it? |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 1, 2017 22:59:16 GMT
Sorry I always forget that you have to do that.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 2, 2017 4:20:03 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to put your plan into this format. Looks like minimal change in most places, except for a Norfolk-Cambs cross-county seat and Colchester and Chelmsford becoming 'doughnutted'. Interesting to see Epping Forest split and the resulting disappearance of Harrow, the awkwardly dubbed 'Grays Thurrock', 'Battlesbridge' as a compromise central name for Rayleigh, Wickford & Woodham, 'Norman Cross' for the seat containing Stilton, 'Norfolk Broads' instead of the sillier LA name of Broadland... and a partial return for Eye. Am I the only person who supported a Herts-Cambs cross-county constituency, and who treated Norfolk alone for 9 seats?? I've gone back and revised some of the suggestions I sent to the BCE for this area, but am not backing down on those two points even if the exact boundaries and names change. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 3, 2017 15:24:03 GMT
I believe the official Labour submission contained both Cambs-Herts and Cambs-Norfolk seats. Personally I went for an intact Hertfordshire and a Cambs-Norfolk seat, but moving Ely instead of Wisbech. Which wouldn't make me any friends amongst my neighbours, if it had a hope in hell of being accepted.
Regarding Adrian's map, I do have to wonder why the idea of putting Brightlingsea in with Clacton keeps coming up. Do people not realise that the Point Clear ferry only runs in the summer? I can if necessary wax lyrical on the many reasons there's no cultural affinity there, but for now I'll just limit myself to saying that Brightlingsea should go with West Mersea and Harwich with Clacton.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 3, 2017 16:42:45 GMT
All three party submissions at the Lead hearing agreed with the commission in having both Cambs-Herts and Cambs-Norfolk seats. (but not all identical)
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 3, 2017 18:46:01 GMT
I believe the official Labour submission contained both Cambs-Herts and Cambs-Norfolk seats. Personally I went for an intact Hertfordshire and a Cambs-Norfolk seat, but moving Ely instead of Wisbech. Which wouldn't make me any friends amongst my neighbours, if it had a hope in hell of being accepted. Regarding Adrian's map, I do have to wonder why the idea of putting Brightlingsea in with Clacton keeps coming up. Do people not realise that the Point Clear ferry only runs in the summer? I can if necessary wax lyrical on the many reasons there's no cultural affinity there, but for now I'll just limit myself to saying that Brightlingsea should go with West Mersea and Harwich with Clacton. I prefer the Beds-Herts and Cambs-Suffolk options for cross-county seats, but nobody seems to suggest those. The former even looked like a sensible solution to me on the zombie review figures. The latter appears an obvious choice considering the shape of the county border around Newmarket. There are obviously reasonable links along the Fens for a Cambs-Norfolk constituency, but it's unnecessary this time when Norfolk can be considered alone for 9 seats. Agreed about Brightlingsea and Harwich. That Part of Essex TM can be tricky, but there's no need for Colchester to end up 'doughnutted'. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 5, 2017 0:48:19 GMT
There's every need for Colchester to be doughnutted. The town is the right size for a seat on its own; the Tendring coast is distinct and ought to be united in the same seat; and there aren't enough electors left to avoid a doughnut seat. The doughnut seat isn't a problem anyway - it's not like the nature of communities is radically different depending on whether they're east or west of Colchester, nor are there particular problems relating to transport links.
Nobody suggests Beds-Herts or Cambs-Suffolk because Bedfordshire and Suffolk both work nicely on their own. Whereas Norfolk does work on its own, but it's exceedingly forced and Cambridgeshire mathematically doesn't work.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 5, 2017 16:21:01 GMT
Dislike of doughnut seats is purely aesthetic anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 5, 2017 16:21:47 GMT
Colchester works, York doesn't, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 5, 2017 16:31:20 GMT
Why have doughnuts rather than a split on an East-West or North-South basis as has been the usual recourse?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 5, 2017 16:39:26 GMT
Why have doughnuts rather than a split on an East-West or North-South basis as has been the usual recourse? Horses for courses, isn't it? Some towns work well with doughnut arrangements. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 5, 2017 16:51:40 GMT
Why have doughnuts rather than a split on an East-West or North-South basis as has been the usual recourse? Horses for courses, isn't it? Some towns work well with doughnut arrangements. Not quite as full an answer as I had hoped David! |
|
