|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 28, 2016 21:12:25 GMT
Finally, this is the third option, which I came up with once it struck me that it probably wasn't strictly necessary to have two seats with long tails disconnected from their main urban centre. In this Rayleigh and Wickford remain together, Brentwood & East Thurrock is demonstrably rather than just plausibly less offensive than the current Basildon South & East Thurrock and it's Billericay which ends up being paired with wide swathes of Essex countryside (like a somewhat less silly version of the zombie review's Billericay & Great Dunmow.) The only downside is that I had to take Galleywood back out of Chelmsford to make the numbers work, but otherwise I'm really pleased with this. EAL, I think your plan three is really strong - particularly like how Rayleigh and Wickford includes the areas from the bottom end of Chelmsford borough like Runwell that look much more towards South Essex. Splitting Brentwood would have been very tough as Shenfield and Hutton are very closely associated and the areas run into each other. I appreciate that Basildon has been split for years but this feels more difficult to do in a smaller town like Brentwood, so keeping these together is a huge advantage over plan two. As you mention it also works nicely with the new ward boundaries that pull in the small villages round Canewdon into a Rochford town ward. Much of what is in Hawkwell South ward calls itself Rochford anyway so reuniting these areas is probably helpful for community identity. The trickiest area I can see in your plan for South Essex (sorry I don't know the rest of the county well!) is West Leigh being taken into Castle Point. David Amess and the Leigh Town Council ran a loud and ultimately successful campaign to get this reversed from the initial plans in the zombie review (although that may have transferred Leigh ward as well). While I can see the arguments for keeping Leigh together, and there is a clear divide in the southern part of the ward with the countryside running to Hadleigh castle, this is not the case with the area of West Leigh ward north of the London Road. Indeed there are several streets that are split between Southend and Castle Point in this area (even a 12 house cul-de-sac!) so it is difficult to argue that there is no link between the areas. Overall think this is a great plan but can't help feeling that the commission will mess about with Basildon rather than breaching the Southend boundary to the west, even though the same has been done to the Rochford boundary for many years. Thank you for the kind words. I think you're right about West Leigh being a possible issue. If I've learnt anything from paying attention to boundary reviews, it's that it's much easier to carve-up a working-class area than a middle-class area, even if the split of the former is much more egregious than the latter, because the latter group write angry letters and the former group don't. There's an interesting passage in the Essex section of the Fifth Periodical Review of Constituencies report where the commissioner remarks that the people of Basildon would like their town to be a whole seat but are resigned to it not being so. The people of West Leigh, which is prime chattering classes territory, do not expect to be divided off from the rest of Southend and would be outraged if it was suggested. They'll write letters against the proposal, whilst the people of Pitsea won't write nearly so many and therefore it'll be assumed they're fine with it. So yes, more than likely I think you'll be proved correct. But it's nice to dream. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 28, 2016 21:23:35 GMT
EAL, I think your plan three is really strong - particularly like how Rayleigh and Wickford includes the areas from the bottom end of Chelmsford borough like Runwell that look much more towards South Essex. I don't know about Runwell, but I have it on good authority that people from South Woodham Ferrers resent being treated as part of Chelmsford, and prefer to look to Wickford and Basildon for services, shopping and socialising – and also possibly Southend-on-Sea for a footballing fix. That the town is presently part of the Maldon seat seems to be an acknowledgment of how much Chelmsford proper is despised, but it's still a strange one on the basis of community links. I've been to Orchard Park and, had it not been rubbish collection day with bins out that had 'South Cambridgeshire District Council' written on them, I'd have assumed I was still within the city boundary. On the other hand, that's anecdotal and I'd rather avoid ward-splitting in mostly rural shire counties. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 28, 2016 22:35:12 GMT
EAL, I think your plan three is really strong - particularly like how Rayleigh and Wickford includes the areas from the bottom end of Chelmsford borough like Runwell that look much more towards South Essex. I don't know about Runwell, but I have it on good authority that people from South Woodham Ferrers resent being treated as part of Chelmsford, and prefer to look to Wickford and Basildon for services, shopping and socialising – and also possibly Southend-on-Sea for a footballing fix. That the town is presently part of the Maldon seat seems to be an acknowledgment of how much Chelmsford proper is despised, but it's still a strange one on the basis of community links. I've been to Orchard Park and, had it not been rubbish collection day with bins out that had 'South Cambridgeshire District Council' written on them, I'd have assumed I was still within the city boundary. On the other hand, that's anecdotal and I'd rather avoid ward-splitting in mostly rural shire counties. Yeah, ward-splitting isn't at all necessary. But actually Orchard Park is the more distinct of the units I've mentioned, because it at least is separated from Cambridge by King's Hedges Road. Whereas you can easily walk from Arbury into The Meadows without noticing you've crossed a ward boundary, still less a district boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 28, 2016 22:58:51 GMT
This one is going to have to be filed under 'just a bit of fun' although quite alot of it is what I'd like to do if I could. its obviously going to be a non-starter from a minimal change point of view and splitting Welwyn Hatfield district between three seats when it can clearly stand on it's own is not going to fly, but anyway...  Watford loses Oxhey itself and the Three Rivers wards to the south while gaining Bedmond, unitying almost all of Abbots Langley parish in one seat. c.71,300 SW Herts is now all of Three Rivers less Abbots Langley parish plus Oxhey from Watford and Bushey from Hertsmere. 74,968 Hemel Hempstead is all of that town plus Kings Langley, Bovingdon etc and the 'Primrose Hill' section of Gade Valley ward. c. 72,800 NW Herts is the remainder of Dacorum plus the Harpenden, Redbourn, Wheathamstead and Sandridge (and etc) parishes of St Albans. 72,884 St Albans loses Marshalswick North to the above seat and Bedmond/Primrose Hill and gains the Aldenham East & West and Elstree wards from Hertsmere. 73,003 (I didn't want to go as far south as Elstree but Marshalswick North had to be donated to NW Herts or it would have caused all sorts of problems into other seats) Hatfield comprises the remainder of Hertsmere (Borehamwood, Shenley adn Potters Bar) with the 'Greater' Hatfield area. 72,327 Hertford combines the 7 wards of Welwyn Garden city with Hertford and Ware plus 3 rural wards in between. 72,650 Stevenage loses Datchworth and gains the two wards of Old Welwyn. 73,652 Hitchin reunites Hitchin with Letchworth & Baldock. 71,767 East Herts combines the rural Eastern section of North Herts district including Royston with Bishops Stortford, Sawbridgeworth and the rural East and North of East Herts district. 73,135 Broxbourne is as before 72,664 But for having to split a ward (and the nightmare new wards we have in Three Rivers make this desirable as much as necessary) I'd be pretty happy with this, but I don't think I'll spend a day in Luton trying to sell it |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 29, 2016 13:48:34 GMT
Finally, this is the third option, which I came up with once it struck me that it probably wasn't strictly necessary to have two seats with long tails disconnected from their main urban centre. In this Rayleigh and Wickford remain together, Brentwood & East Thurrock is demonstrably rather than just plausibly less offensive than the current Basildon South & East Thurrock and it's Billericay which ends up being paired with wide swathes of Essex countryside (like a somewhat less silly version of the zombie review's Billericay & Great Dunmow.) The only downside is that I had to take Galleywood back out of Chelmsford to make the numbers work, but otherwise I'm really pleased with this. EAL, I think your plan three is really strong - particularly like how Rayleigh and Wickford includes the areas from the bottom end of Chelmsford borough like Runwell that look much more towards South Essex. Splitting Brentwood would have been very tough as Shenfield and Hutton are very closely associated and the areas run into each other. I appreciate that Basildon has been split for years but this feels more difficult to do in a smaller town like Brentwood, so keeping these together is a huge advantage over plan two. As you mention it also works nicely with the new ward boundaries that pull in the small villages round Canewdon into a Rochford town ward. Much of what is in Hawkwell South ward calls itself Rochford anyway so reuniting these areas is probably helpful for community identity. The trickiest area I can see in your plan for South Essex (sorry I don't know the rest of the county well!) is West Leigh being taken into Castle Point. David Amess and the Leigh Town Council ran a loud and ultimately successful campaign to get this reversed from the initial plans in the zombie review (although that may have transferred Leigh ward as well). While I can see the arguments for keeping Leigh together, and there is a clear divide in the southern part of the ward with the countryside running to Hadleigh castle, this is not the case with the area of West Leigh ward north of the London Road. Indeed there are several streets that are split between Southend and Castle Point in this area (even a 12 house cul-de-sac!) so it is difficult to argue that there is no link between the areas. Overall think this is a great plan but can't help feeling that the commission will mess about with Basildon rather than breaching the Southend boundary to the west, even though the same has been done to the Rochford boundary for many years. There's quite a nice scheme if you allow "East Thurrock & Canvey" - OK the road link passes outside the constituency but it is arguably still pretty coherent. (also includes South Benfleet). Means you can have a united Basildon; a nice compact Rayleigh (incl north of Castle Point & South WF) and a nice Billericay (incl Wickford & rural south Chelmsford boro'). Also keeps Brentwood & Ongar together and avoids crossing western boundary of Southend. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 29, 2016 15:38:13 GMT
Sure, but their conclusions from last time aren't necessarily definitive, and Boundary Commissions are rarely consistent. And splitting South Oxhey 3 ways is hideous, and this is compounded if you link one part to somewhere it doesn't have a proper road link to. So I'd suggest the fact that they were dozy enough to agree to it last time isn't sufficient justification to try the same solution again. If you want, compared with the map GKR posted, you could move Colney Heath into Hertsmere; Leavesden into St Albans; and Carpenders Park into Watford. That leaves AL and SO split between 2 constituencies rather than 3 and avoids the Carpenders Park - Hertsmere tie-up. That's marginally better than putting Leavesden by itself into St Albans, but I still think splitting Leavesden from Watford is difficult given the utterly arbitrary way that boundary cuts the ends off culs-de-sac and crescents and even divides blocks of flats; and it is more disruptive of existing constituencies. Hertsmere 74,091 St Albans 72,916 Watford 73,347 |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 29, 2016 22:44:37 GMT
EAL, I think your plan three is really strong - particularly like how Rayleigh and Wickford includes the areas from the bottom end of Chelmsford borough like Runwell that look much more towards South Essex. Splitting Brentwood would have been very tough as Shenfield and Hutton are very closely associated and the areas run into each other. I appreciate that Basildon has been split for years but this feels more difficult to do in a smaller town like Brentwood, so keeping these together is a huge advantage over plan two. As you mention it also works nicely with the new ward boundaries that pull in the small villages round Canewdon into a Rochford town ward. Much of what is in Hawkwell South ward calls itself Rochford anyway so reuniting these areas is probably helpful for community identity. The trickiest area I can see in your plan for South Essex (sorry I don't know the rest of the county well!) is West Leigh being taken into Castle Point. David Amess and the Leigh Town Council ran a loud and ultimately successful campaign to get this reversed from the initial plans in the zombie review (although that may have transferred Leigh ward as well). While I can see the arguments for keeping Leigh together, and there is a clear divide in the southern part of the ward with the countryside running to Hadleigh castle, this is not the case with the area of West Leigh ward north of the London Road. Indeed there are several streets that are split between Southend and Castle Point in this area (even a 12 house cul-de-sac!) so it is difficult to argue that there is no link between the areas. Overall think this is a great plan but can't help feeling that the commission will mess about with Basildon rather than breaching the Southend boundary to the west, even though the same has been done to the Rochford boundary for many years. There's quite a nice scheme if you allow "East Thurrock & Canvey" - OK the road link passes outside the constituency but it is arguably still pretty coherent. (also includes South Benfleet). Means you can have a united Basildon; a nice compact Rayleigh (incl north of Castle Point & South WF) and a nice Billericay (incl Wickford & rural south Chelmsford boro'). Also keeps Brentwood & Ongar together and avoids crossing western boundary of Southend. Sorry, but that's dreadful. As you say, East Thurrock and Canvey doesn't have a direct road link and in fact you have to go right into Basildon to get from one to the other. Canvey may be odd and insular, but it's got much better links to the mainland bits of Castle Point and any map ought to reflect that. And putting bits of Castle Point into Rayleigh is a bad idea because a) the ward patterns don't conform terribly well to the component parts of Castle Point and b) all the major transport connections in that bit of Essex go east-west, not north-south. The A127 is a strong boundary and I think it should be followed to the maximum extent possible. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Mar 2, 2016 4:39:57 GMT
[quote/]Sorry, but that's dreadful. As you say, East Thurrock and Canvey doesn't have a direct road link and in fact you have to go right into Basildon to get from one to the other. Canvey may be odd and insular, but it's got much better links to the mainland bits of Castle Point and any map ought to reflect that. And putting bits of Castle Point into Rayleigh is a bad idea because a) the ward patterns don't conform terribly well to the component parts of Castle Point and b) all the major transport connections in that bit of Essex go east-west, not north-south. The A127 is a strong boundary and I think it should be followed to the maximum extent possible.[/quote]
Ok - I can't argue with what you say (except the A13 doesn't really go 'right into' Basildon, more skirts its southern edge); but if you really want to achieve a unified Basildon seat I think you will need to come up with a solution for East Thurrock that's not going to frighten the horses ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 2, 2016 9:59:42 GMT
Here's my plan for Essex. Again apologies if I'm repeating much of what has already been done in some areas, but I think I've found a reasonable solution to the Basildon problem  Harwich & Clacton ; - Clacton less little Clacton and St Osyth and gains the Harwich area. 77,200Colcehster - gains east Doneyland 74,140 NE Essex - the remainder of Tendring and Colchester districts less Great Tey. 75,343 (I'd love a doktorbian name here - something like Tiptree, Manningtree, Mersea and Brightlingsea) Maldon - the Maldon district plus the four Witham wards and Hatfield Peverel and Silver End frm Braintree 74,587Braintree - The remiander of Braintree district plus Great Tey from Colchester, less Bumpstead, Stour Valley N, Three Fields and Yeldham 72,583Saffron Walden. The whole of Uttlesford district plus Bumpstead, Stour Valley N, Three Fields and Yeldham 72,848Harlow & Epping The eexisting Harlow seat plus Broadley common etc and the two Epping wards 77,929Epping Forest The remainder of Epping Forest district 77,500 (the name is based on the district or the forest rather than the town so i don't think a name change is needed but you could revive the old Chigwell name) Brentwood loses the Epping Forest wards and Herongate and Warley - Gains a chunk of rural Chelmsford district 75,223Chelmsford loses Galleywood 73,716Rayleigh & Wickford The Wickford wards from Bsildon, Rayleigh wards from Rochford and a bunch of wards from the SOuth of Chelmsford district 75,513Rochford & Southend East Now to include all of Rochford district except for Rayleigh. loses the Kursaal, Milton and Victoria wards of Southend. 78,267Southend Central compared with Southend West, gains Kursaal, Milton and Victoria, loses West Leigh 78,267Castle Point gains West Leigh 74,488Basildon combines the 9 wards of Basildon New Town 71,441Billericay & Corringham Combines the Billericay, Burstead and Crouch wards from Basildon with the dreaded 'East Thurrock' area plus Herongate and Warley from Brentwood 71,111 (not especially elegant but nothing round here is going to be and its similar to the Billericay seat that existed from 1983-97) Thurrock is unchanged at 75,935NB the boundary between Braintree and Maldon is a bit smoother than it looks on my map due to ward boundary changes |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 2, 2016 12:35:41 GMT
I like the Whitehead plan.
But in the Epping/Harlow area, I think the good folk of Epping will fight tooth and nail to avoid being lumped in with Harlow. You might like to try to appease them by calling it 'Epping and Harlow' rather than the other way round. Also, I think your alternative suggestion of 'Chigwell' is better for the other seat.
It would be possible to draw the boundaries differently here by taking Chigwell and Waltham Abbey together (the two former UDs, 42268 and 16167 respectively, both still clearly reflected in the current ward map - such is the persistence of local boundaries) and adding to them the two Epping town wards (10097) and the following the four wards: Lower Nazeing, Broadley Common (&c), Theydon Bois and Lambourne (total 9797). This gives you an Epping Forest seat (78327) that still includes Epping, and Harlow plus all the rest of EF district (77102). The villages are bound to moan, but they will whatever you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 2, 2016 13:02:49 GMT
Another possibility there, although it would be a bit of a weird shape, is to have Harlow and Waltham Abbey (not including High Beach) which would be linked by Royden and Lower Nazeing
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 2, 2016 13:06:27 GMT
I like the Whitehead plan. But in the Epping/Harlow area, I think the good folk of Epping will fight tooth and nail to avoid being lumped in with Harlow. You might like to try to appease them by calling it 'Epping and Harlow' rather than the other way round. Also, I think your alternative suggestion of 'Chigwell' is better for the other seat. It would be possible to draw the boundaries differently here by taking Chigwell and Waltham Abbey together (the two former UDs, 42268 and 16167 respectively, both still clearly reflected in the current ward map - such is the persistence of local boundaries) and adding to them the two Epping town wards (10097) and the following the four wards: Lower Nazeing, Broadley Common (&c), Theydon Bois and Lambourne (total 9797). This gives you an Epping Forest seat (78327) that still includes Epping, and Harlow plus all the rest of EF district (77102). The villages are bound to moan, but they will whatever you do. It could be pointed out to them that they used to be lumped in with Harlow (or vice versa to be fair) - a return to historical boundaries!  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 2, 2016 17:53:41 GMT
I like the Whitehead plan. But in the Epping/Harlow area, I think the good folk of Epping will fight tooth and nail to avoid being lumped in with Harlow. You might like to try to appease them by calling it 'Epping and Harlow' rather than the other way round. Also, I think your alternative suggestion of 'Chigwell' is better for the other seat. It would be possible to draw the boundaries differently here by taking Chigwell and Waltham Abbey together (the two former UDs, 42268 and 16167 respectively, both still clearly reflected in the current ward map - such is the persistence of local boundaries) and adding to them the two Epping town wards (10097) and the following the four wards: Lower Nazeing, Broadley Common (&c), Theydon Bois and Lambourne (total 9797). This gives you an Epping Forest seat (78327) that still includes Epping, and Harlow plus all the rest of EF district (77102). The villages are bound to moan, but they will whatever you do. But why should the moaning of Epping be accorded more notice than the moaning of villages? Particularly since it is abundantly clear that Harlow has much to do with Epping than with Ongar. I think Pete's idea of adding Waltham Abbey instead might see less moaning, but that would be solely for reasons of differential response rates, and leaving out High Beach would be somewhat suboptimal. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 2, 2016 22:12:46 GMT
Brentwood loses the Epping Forest wards and Herongate and Warley - Gains a chunk of rural Chelmsford district 75,223Chelmsford loses Galleywood 73,716Rayleigh & Wickford The Wickford wards from Basildon, Rayleigh wards from Rochford and a bunch of wards from the South of Chelmsford district 75,513Rochford & Southend East Now to include all of Rochford district except for Rayleigh. loses the Kursaal, Milton and Victoria wards of Southend. 78,267Southend Central compared with Southend West, gains Kursaal, Milton and Victoria, loses West Leigh 78,267Castle Point gains West Leigh 74,488 Well, this is always a difficult county, but minimal changes to Colchester and none at all to the three-way marginal that is Thurrock appear fine to me. Is there perhaps a better name than 'Central' for the other Southend seat? Has Leigh-on-Sea been split between that and the Canvey Island constituency, and is that desirable/avoidable? Brentwood ditching the 'Ongar' part would be just grand, and letting South Woodham Ferrers end up in a seat with Wickford instead of Maldon is a sound choice. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 9, 2016 12:02:51 GMT
No one is covering Suffolk here, so here we go:
1. Eye. The entire district of Mid Suffolk. Electorate: 76,018.
2. Lowestoft. The entire district of Waveney except for the wards of Blything, Southwold & Reydon, The Saints, Halesworth and Wrentham. ELectorate: 75,603.
3. Bury St Edmunds. All St Edmundsbury wards except for Clare, Cavendish, Haverhill East/North/South/West, Withersfield, Whickhambrook, Hundon and Kedington, plus also the Forest Heath wards of Brandon East/West, Lakenheath, Eriswell & The Rows, Great Heath, Iceni, Market, Manor, and Red Lodge. Electorate: 72,747.
4. Newmarket, Haverhill, & Sudbury. The Forest Heath wards of All Saints, Exning, St Mary's, Severals, and South, plus the St Edmundsbury wards of Haverhill East/North/South/West, Withersfield, Whickhambrook, Hundon and Kedington, plus the Babergh wards of Chadacre, Glemsford & Stanstead, Long Melford, Lavenham, North Cosford, Brett Vale, Waldingfield, Sudbury East/North/South, and Great Cornard North/South. Electorate: 77,717.
5. Ipswich. All Ipswich wards except for Priory Heath and Gainsborough. Electorate: 75,984.
6. Felixstowe & Ipswich South. All wards in Babergh not included in Newmarket, Haverhill & Sudbury, the Ipswich wards of Priory Heath and Gainsborough, and the Suffolk Coastal wards of The Trimleys, Nacton & Purdis Farm, Kirton, Deben, and Felixstowe East/North/South/West. Electorate: 76,238.
7. Woodbridge. The remainder of Suffolk Coastal (focused on the town of Woodbridge) plus the Waveney wards of Blything, Southwold & Reydon, The Saints, Halesworth and Wrentham. Electorate: 77,610.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 9, 2016 12:12:59 GMT
"The honourable member for Eye voted Aye"
Interesting ideas, but the Commission aren't going to be interested in a complete redrawing when you only need to shuffle a couple of wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 9, 2016 12:19:25 GMT
A mixture of good and new ideas, but the ideas that are good are not new and the ideas that are new are not good.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 9, 2016 21:51:05 GMT
I think I was actually too kind to Greenhert's proposals, because I read them in a hurry. I see at least three glaring flaws:
1. It splits Forest Heath, which is completely unnecessary and removes and credit you might expect to get for keeping Mid Suffolk whole. And there's not much credit to be gained there, because Mid Suffolk isn't that cohesive a district. And the chosen split makes Newmarket even more of a tenuous peninsula than it already is, which is impressive in a sort of terrible way.
2. I can see why it makes sense to link Haverhill and Sudbury in the abstract, because they're both towns with a history of London overspill. But in practical terms, their transport connections have been crap since the railway went. And Sudbury has nothing to do with Newmarket (nor does Haverhill, really, but at least you've gut a historical precedent there.)
3. Most fundamentally of all, crossing the Orwell is just a gratuitously terrible idea. It's a very real boundary on the ground and the A14 is not a local connector - it's just a trunk road for lorries to get quick access to the Midlands. If you're ignoring minimum change, then there's a good case for a Felixstowe-Ipswich link-up, but it ought to be based upon links between north-east Ipswich and the suburban overflow of Rushmere and Kesgrave, not upon some monstrosity stretching right down to Dedham Vale.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 10, 2016 13:58:17 GMT
I have a plan for Cambridgeshire and Norfolk that I'm pleased with. I'll post details later but seats and electorates are (working very roughly from west to east):
Peterborough - 77607
North West Cambridgeshire - 75862
Huntingdon - 71538
South West Cambridgeshire - 77504
Cambridge - 72757
South East Cambridgeshire - 76295
Ely - 76767
King's Lynn and Wisbech - 73652
South West Norfolk - 75067
North Norfolk - 77045
Mid Norfolk - 73068
South Norfolk - 72454
Norwich South - 75061
Norwich North - 74731
North East Norfolk - 75013
Great Yarmouth - 76227
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 10, 2016 19:00:34 GMT
Details as promised:
PETERBOROUGH - Current seat plus Fletton & Woodston (I assume they're using old wards since that's the basis on which the numbers have been issued).
NORTH WEST CAMBRIDGESHIRE - The electorate of the current seat is so large (second only to the Isle of Wight) that even the loss of Fletton leaves it still well over quota. So it also loses Ellington and Earlth from its southwestern and southeastern corners respectively.
HUNTINGDON - The current seat plus Ellington but less the 3 wards of St Ives town.
SOUTH WEST CAMBRIDGESHIRE - Based on the current South Cambs seat, but it gains St Ives, Earlth and Willingham & Over and loses Queen Edith's and 7 rural wards south of Cambridge: Harston & Hauxton, Fowlmere & Foxton (nice alliterative names) and everything to the east of these. These changes mean that the name of 'South Cambridgeshire' is no longer geographically accurate.
CAMBRIDGE - The current seat plus Queen Edith's (coterminous with the city, in other words).
SOUTH EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE - The current seat gains the 7 wards south of Cambridge but loses Willingham & Over, Haddenham, Stretham and the 4 wards of Ely city.
ELY - This is North East Cambridgeshire with the addition of Ely, Haddenham and Stretham and northward up to and including March, but omitting the ten wards north of that town including the town of Wisbech. The seat no longer includes the northeastern part of Cambs so a name change is needed, and 'Ely' has a long and distinguished history as a constituency name.
KING's LYNN AND WISBECH - Cross-border seats can be unsatisfactory, but I'm quite pleased with this one. It includes the 10 Fenland wards plus the wards of the King's Lynn & W Norfolk district lying wholly or mainly west of the Great Ouse and the whole town of King's Lynn (two wards include significant territory on both sides of the Gt Ouse; the seat includes both of them).
SOUTH WEST NORFOLK - On its western flank, the current seat loses all the wards west of the Ouse; to the north, it gains West Winch, Priory, Gayton and Grimston. To the east, major changes are needed because of new wards in Breckland; the seat includes the whole western half of Breckland (west of a line along the eastern borders of Hermitage, Launditch, Necton, Ashill, Forest but also including Harling & Heathlands and Guiltcross).
NORTH NORFOLK - The current seat shuffles westward. It takes in all the wards of King's Lynn and W Norfolk down as far as South Wootton; plus North Norfolk district as far west as (and including) Erpingham, Roughton and Poppyland (thus gaining the Fakenham area from the Broadland seat).
MID NORFOLK - The wards of Breckland not in the SW Norfolk seat, plus the part of South Norfolk district in the current seat.
SOUTH NORFOLK - The current seat less Old Costessey.
NORWICH SOUTH - The current seat plus Old Costessey.
NORWICH NORTH - The current seat plus Plumstead, Brundall and Blofield & S Walsham.
NORTH EAST NORFOLK - The whole of Broadland district except the parts in Norwich N and Gt Yarmouth, plus the parts of N Norfolk district not in N Norfolk constituency. Alternatively this could be called 'Aylsham and North Walsham'.
GREAT YARMOUTH - The current seat plus Acle, Marshes and Burlingham.
East Anglian Lefty has also posted a plan for these counties. We've taken a different approach, but I haven't done a detailed comparison.
|
|
