|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 19, 2016 8:55:24 GMT
If you or I were the boundary god, we could impose Thurrock-Canvey on the minions below, but we're not, so there's no chance. If only because with it every other seat looks so lovely |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 19, 2016 10:27:21 GMT
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. But what about my plan, putting the north part of Castle Point into Southend meaning that there is no Seat with a wierd long tail Clacton & Harwich 77200 North Essex 77901 Colchester 77971 Braintree 77340 Uttlesford 77677 Maldon 74587 Chelmsford 75657 Harlow 71474 Epping Forest 75082 Brentwood 72423 Billericay & Wickford 76401 Rochford 71943 Southend East 72845 Southend West 72468 Basildon 74130 Castle Point 73563 Thurrock 75935 EssexMaking the seats look nice on a map doesn't excuse making seats which make no sense on the ground. In any case, as a general rule I think it's very unwise to split Castle Point. This is because there is no such place as Castle Point - the northern part is made up of the separate communities of Hadleigh, South Benfleet and Thundersley. In theory there's no reason the three places have to go together, but in practice multiple wards take in parts of two of these settlements, so if you split Castle Point you inevitably split a town. And you really need to rethink what you're doing around Chelmsford. Cutting out integral parts of the urban area is much worse than having the occasional small tail. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 19, 2016 11:16:23 GMT
But what about my plan, putting the north part of Castle Point into Southend meaning that there is no Seat with a wierd long tail Clacton & Harwich 77200 North Essex 77901 Colchester 77971 Braintree 77340 Uttlesford 77677 Maldon 74587 Chelmsford 75657 Harlow 71474 Epping Forest 75082 Brentwood 72423 Billericay & Wickford 76401 Rochford 71943 Southend East 72845 Southend West 72468 Basildon 74130 Castle Point 73563 Thurrock 75935  Making the seats look nice on a map doesn't excuse making seats which make no sense on the ground. In any case, as a general rule I think it's very unwise to split Castle Point. This is because there is no such place as Castle Point - the northern part is made up of the separate communities of Hadleigh, South Benfleet and Thundersley. In theory there's no reason the three places have to go together, but in practice multiple wards take in parts of two of these settlements, so if you split Castle Point you inevitably split a town. And you really need to rethink what you're doing around Chelmsford. Cutting out integral parts of the urban area is much worse than having the occasional small tail. OK, and what do you think of my Hitchin-Letchworth plan? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 19, 2016 11:27:49 GMT
My view is that the integrity of Hemel Hempstead as a town is more important than the wholly artificial Hertsmere. Your Harpenden seat is ludicrous tbh. I assume the numbers was why you took out Warners End rather than Grove Hill but if you must hive wards of Hemel then you've really got to take off a contiguous area (and in actual fact you must not do it at all)
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 19, 2016 11:37:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 19, 2016 12:24:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 19, 2016 13:35:48 GMT
Sorry but it really isn't |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 19, 2016 22:56:24 GMT
My revised and finalised Essex proposals:
1. Harlow & Epping (77,929). As the current Harlow constituency plus Broadley Common, Epping Upland & Lower Nazeing, Epping Lindsey & Thornwood Common, and Epping Hemnall.
2. Loughton (77,500). As the current Epping Forest constituency minus all Epping wards, but plus the Epping Forest wards of Lambourne, Passingford, North Weald Bassett, Chipping Ongar, Greensted & Marden Ash, Shelley, Moreton & Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingdale & The Rodings.
3. Brentwood (73,835). The entire Brentwood district and also the Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield & the Walthams, and Boreham & the Leighs.
4. Chelmsford (73,716). Loses Galleywood ward.
5. Saffron Walden (76,957). The entire Uttlesford district and also the Braintree wards of Bumpstead, Three Fields, Yeldham, Hedingham, and Stour Valley North.
6. Braintree & Witham (75,753). The Braintree wards of Hatfield Peverel & Terling, Witham Central/North/South/West, Silver End & Cressing, Kelvedon & Feering, Coggeshall, Great Notley & Black Notley, Braintree Central & Beckers Green, Braintree South/West, Bocking Blackwater/North/South, and Rayne.
7. Maldon (72,385). The entire Maldon district except for Purleigh ward plus also the Colchester wards of Birch & Winstree, Pyefleet, West Mersea, Stanway, Copford & West Stanway, Marks Tey, and Tiptree.
8. Colchester (72,295). Unchanged.
9. Clacton (74,609). Gains Brightlingsea ward.
10. Harwich & North Essex (72,066). As the current constituency minus the Colchester wards of Pyefleet & West Mersea and the Tendring ward of Brightlingsea, but plus the Braintree wards of Stour Valley South, the Colnes, Halstead St Andrew's, Halstead Trinity, and Gosfield & Greenstead Green.
11. Grays Thurrock (75,935). As Thurrock constituency with name changed to reflect the fact it does not cover the entire area of Thurrock council.
12. Billericay & South Woodham Ferrers (71,039). The Basildon wards of Billericay East/West and Burstead, the Rochford ward of Hullbridge, the Maldon ward of Purleigh, plus the Chelmsford wards of South Woodham-Elmwood & Woodville, South Woodham-Chetwood & Collingwood, Rettendon & Runwell, Galleywood, Little Baddow, Danbury & Sandon, Bicknacre and East & West Hanningfield, and South Hanningfield, Stock, & Margretting.
13. Basildon & Stanford-le-Hope (78,2310. As Basildon South & Thurrock East minus Langdon Hills ward but plus St Martin's and Fryerns wards.
14. Canvey Island & Benfleet (74,488). As Castle Point plus the Southend ward of West Leigh.
15. Southend West (71,355). Loses West Leigh ward, gains Victoria and Milton wards.
16. Rochford & Southend East (78,335). Loses the Southend ward of Victoria and Milton, gains the Rochford wards of Hawkwell (all) and Hocking (all).
17. Rayleigh & Wickford (78,175). Loses the Rochford wards of Hullbridge, Hawkwell (all) and Hocking (all), gains the Basildon wards of Laindon Park, Langdon Hills and Lee Chapel North.
The Witham constituency disappears just as it did in the 'zombie review', as does Basildon & Billericay. The 'new' constituency is Billericay & South Woodham Ferrers.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 20, 2016 0:29:16 GMT
Making the seats look nice on a map doesn't excuse making seats which make no sense on the ground. In any case, as a general rule I think it's very unwise to split Castle Point. This is because there is no such place as Castle Point - the northern part is made up of the separate communities of Hadleigh, South Benfleet and Thundersley. In theory there's no reason the three places have to go together, but in practice multiple wards take in parts of two of these settlements, so if you split Castle Point you inevitably split a town. And you really need to rethink what you're doing around Chelmsford. Cutting out integral parts of the urban area is much worse than having the occasional small tail. OK, and what do you think of my Hitchin-Letchworth plan? I don't know Hertfordshire well enough to really have any strong feelings about it whatsoever, I'm afraid. I've got my ideas about what does and doesn't make a good seat or set of seats, but when I don't have a stronger reaction to a county than an enduring dislike for the A505, I tend to switch off and let those who are more personally invested give their opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 20, 2016 0:36:57 GMT
My revised and finalised Essex proposals: 1. Harlow & Epping (77,929). As the current Harlow constituency plus Broadley Common, Epping Upland & Lower Nazeing, Epping Lindsey & Thornwood Common, and Epping Hemnall. 2. Loughton (77,500). As the current Epping Forest constituency minus all Epping wards, but plus the Epping Forest wards of Lambourne, Passingford, North Weald Bassett, Chipping Ongar, Greensted & Marden Ash, Shelley, Moreton & Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingdale & The Rodings. 3. Brentwood (73,835). The entire Brentwood district and also the Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield & the Walthams, and Boreham & the Leighs. 4. Chelmsford (73,716). Loses Galleywood ward. 5. Saffron Walden (76,957). The entire Uttlesford district and also the Braintree wards of Bumpstead, Three Fields, Yeldham, Hedingham, and Stour Valley North. 6. Braintree & Witham (75,753). The Braintree wards of Hatfield Peverel & Terling, Witham Central/North/South/West, Silver End & Cressing, Kelvedon & Feering, Coggeshall, Great Notley & Black Notley, Braintree Central & Beckers Green, Braintree South/West, Bocking Blackwater/North/South, and Rayne. 7. Maldon (72,385). The entire Maldon district except for Purleigh ward plus also the Colchester wards of Birch & Winstree, Pyefleet, West Mersea, Stanway, Copford & West Stanway, Marks Tey, and Tiptree. 8. Colchester (72,295). Unchanged. 9. Clacton (74,609). Gains Brightlingsea ward. 10. Harwich & North Essex (72,066). As the current constituency minus the Colchester wards of Pyefleet & West Mersea and the Tendring ward of Brightlingsea, but plus the Braintree wards of Stour Valley South, the Colnes, Halstead St Andrew's, Halstead Trinity, and Gosfield & Greenstead Green. 11. Grays Thurrock (75,935). As Thurrock constituency with name changed to reflect the fact it does not cover the entire area of Thurrock council. 12. Billericay & South Woodham Ferrers (71,039). The Basildon wards of Billericay East/West and Burstead, the Rochford ward of Hullbridge, the Maldon ward of Purleigh, plus the Chelmsford wards of South Woodham-Elmwood & Woodville, South Woodham-Chetwood & Collingwood, Rettendon & Runwell, Galleywood, Little Baddow, Danbury & Sandon, Bicknacre and East & West Hanningfield, and South Hanningfield, Stock, & Margretting. 13. Basildon & Stanford-le-Hope (78,2310. As Basildon South & Thurrock East minus Langdon Hills ward but plus St Martin's and Fryerns wards. 14. Canvey Island & Benfleet (74,488). As Castle Point plus the Southend ward of West Leigh. 15. Southend West (71,355). Loses West Leigh ward, gains Victoria and Milton wards. 16. Rochford & Southend East (78,335). Loses the Southend ward of Victoria and Milton, gains the Rochford wards of Hawkwell (all) and Hocking (all). 17. Rayleigh & Wickford (78,175). Loses the Rochford wards of Hullbridge, Hawkwell (all) and Hocking (all), gains the Basildon wards of Laindon Park, Langdon Hills and Lee Chapel North. The Witham constituency disappears just as it did in the 'zombie review', as does Basildon & Billericay. The 'new' constituency is Billericay & South Woodham Ferrers. Check a road atlas. You can't go from Brightlingsea to the Clacton constituency without passing through two non-Clacton wards. If you try to walk across the creek, you will drown in mud before you even get to the water.Added to which, Brightlinsea has precisely no links to Clacton whatsoever. Whereas I have precisely no interest in Hertfordshire, I know that area like the back of my hand are your suggestion is simply execrable. It wouldn't be justifiable if it improved neighbouring seats, but it doesn't even manage that. There isn't a good reason for a seat stretching from Harwich to Great Tey, but if you stretch it out as far as Halstead you're just taking the piss. The simplest and best option is to recreate the old Harwich seat. Clacton and Harwich are fairly different places, but they've got fairly similar needs. Much the same applies to the villages ringing Colchester. So follow that. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 20, 2016 0:53:10 GMT
OK, and what do you think of my Hitchin-Letchworth plan? I don't know Hertfordshire well enough to really have any strong feelings about it whatsoever, I'm afraid. I've got my ideas about what does and doesn't make a good seat or set of seats, but when I don't have a stronger reaction to a county than an enduring dislike for the A505, I tend to switch off and let those who are more personally invested give their opinions. Be thankful you don't have to go through the middle of Baldock anymore |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 20, 2016 10:12:43 GMT
East Anglian Lefty, I was trying to get rid of Witham which I feel is a particularly awkward constituency only created in 2010 to fulfil Essex's entitlement to an extra seat. I cannot entirely recreate the old Harwich constituency as it would be too large within the current parameters, but I can create an approximation that includes the main towns. Here is an alternative plan (not entirely without faults either, I am afraid.) NB: My Harlow & Epping, Loughton, Grays Thurrock, Basildon & Stanford-le-Hope, Rayleigh & Wickford, Canvey Island & Benfleet, Chelmsford and Colchester proposals are as with the original plan. 1. Braintree (72,842). Unchanged except for minor ward adjustments. 2. Southend West (78,267). Loses West Leigh ward, gains Victoria, Milton, and Kursaal wards. 3. Rochford & Southend East (76,773). Loses the Southend wards of Victoria, Milton and Kursaal, gains the Rochford wards of Hawkwell (all), Hockley (all), and Hullbridge. 4. Brentwood & Billericay (75,160). The entire Brentwood district except for Tipps Cross and Ingatestone, Fryeming and Mountressing wards, plus the Basildon wards of Burstead and Billericay East/West. 5. Witham (74,211). Loses the Colchester wards of Marks Tey, Stanway and Copford & Stanway West, and gains the Chelmsford wards of Broomfield & The Walthams, Boreham & The Leighs, and Little Baddow, Danbury & Saddon. 6. Saffron Walden (71,149). Loses the Chelmsford wards of Broomfield & The Walthams and Boreham & The Leighs, and gains the Brentwood ward of Tipps Cross. 7. Maldon (71,497). Loses the Chelmsford ward of Little Baddow, Danbury & Saddon, gains the Brentwood ward of Ingatestone, Fryeming and Mountressing and the Chelmsford ward of Galleywood. 8. North Essex (73,265). As Harwich & North Essex minus the Tendring wards of Great & Little Oakley, Ramsey & Parkeston, and Harwich (all), but plus the Colchester wards of Marks Tey, Stanway, and Copford & Stanway West and the Tendring wards of Little Clacton & Weebley, Bocking Elm and St Osyth & Point Clear. 9. Harwich (73,164). All Tendring wards except for those contained in North Essex. Similar to the pre-2010 Harwich constituency.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 21, 2016 0:11:23 GMT
All sensible plans will get rid of Witham, but that's because Tendring and Colchester are more or less the right size for three seats. You've at least got the right basic arrangement, except that Bocking Elm shouldn't be separated from the rest of Clacton.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 21, 2016 19:49:27 GMT
The zombie review pattern works with only the requirement to move 1 rural ward into Harlow, so this is the most likely solution, with Witham linked again with Braintree. However I like linking Witham with Maldon as in the old 1950s constituency. As a former Essex resident I have a number of beefs with the zombie review.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 21, 2016 20:07:08 GMT
John Chanin, like the proposed Billericay & Great Dunmow constituency, I assume, which as a constituency makes no sense as there is no connection between those two towns. Keep in mind that pairing Witham & Maldon requires a significant redrawing of the existing Braintree constituency to bring it in quota, and (as far as I know) to recreate the old Rayleigh constituency and then stretch it (in boundary terms).
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 22, 2016 7:16:44 GMT
John Chanin , like the proposed Billericay & Great Dunmow constituency, I assume, which as a constituency makes no sense as there is no connection between those two towns. Keep in mind that pairing Witham & Maldon requires a significant redrawing of the existing Braintree constituency to bring it in quota, and (as far as I know) to recreate the old Rayleigh constituency and then stretch it (in boundary terms). Yes quite so on all counts. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 22, 2016 8:24:48 GMT
John Chanin , like the proposed Billericay & Great Dunmow constituency, I assume, which as a constituency makes no sense as there is no connection between those two towns. Keep in mind that pairing Witham & Maldon requires a significant redrawing of the existing Braintree constituency to bring it in quota, and (as far as I know) to recreate the old Rayleigh constituency and then stretch it (in boundary terms). any chance of a map greenhert? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 22, 2016 13:45:11 GMT
Yes: 
However, you should not try and treat 'outer Chelmsford' as if it were 'York Outer' for logistical reasons. Also, the Uttlesford-Braintree-Maldon pairing only works sensibly if you add one outside ward which is connected well enough to it, unless you split one of the wards in between the towns of Braintree and Witham themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Aug 22, 2016 21:24:13 GMT
Yes:
However, you should not try and treat 'outer Chelmsford' as if it were 'York Outer' for logistical reasons. Also, the Uttlesford-Braintree-Maldon pairing only works sensibly if you add one outside ward which is connected well enough to it, unless you split one of the wards in between the towns of Braintree and Witham themselves. Thanks greenhert, and could you show us the rest of essex because I would like to see whether I could play with it mysef |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 4, 2016 21:37:31 GMT
With the provisional recommendations about to come out, I thought I'd post my final version of the maps I'd draw for my home area were I in charge of it. Key considerations (in no particular order) have been respect for local authority boundaries, minimising change and ensuring strong and identifiable boundaries. I've been less bothered by avoiding stringy constituencies, where there's nevertheless a regional amount of shared identity between the different bits of the strings. You can't get much of a Labour gerrymander out of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, but I think it would be fair to say that where it's feasible I have stuck my thumb on the scale.  Peterborough (77607) - gains Fletton & Woodston. Partly because it's the least change option, partly because it's the best balance of feasibility and maintaining marginality. North West Cambridgeshire (73023) - loses Fletton & Woodston, Upwood & The Raveleys, Sawtry and Ellington. I'm not entirely happy about the arm down to Earith (Warboys is fine, but beyond that you're out of Peterborough's economic orbit.) However, if you want to remove Somersham and Earith, then you need to go right down to the Bedfordshire border, which is equally stringy, slightly worse on community grounds and involves more change. Huntingdon (76762) - gains Upwood & The Raveleys, Sawtry and Ellington; loses Fenstanton and the St Ives wards. Initially I wanted the seat's eastern boundary to the St Neots town boundary and the Great Ouse, but unfortunately The Hemingfords ward is on both sides of the river and lacks a bridge. I was tempted to try it anyway, but given that I've criticised everybody else for putting St Ives in with areas it lacks a road connection to, it'd be hypocritical to do the same. So St Ives is excluded as the easiest town to leave out, but Fenstanton has to go with it so there's a road link. South West Cambridgeshire (77053) - successor to South Cambridgeshire; loses Swavesey, Longstanton, Cottenham, Girton and Queen Edith's; gains Fenstanton and the St Ives ward. There's a strong boundary along the A14. St Ives sticks out a little, but the aforementioned issue with the Hemingfords prevents a neater boundary. Cambridge (72757) - gains Queen Edith's; the whole local authority. No other option with IER and the rate of electorate churn. South East Cambridgeshire (74361) - gains Swavesey, Longstanton, Cottenham and Girton; loses Stretham, Haddenham and the Ely wards. Within East Cambridgeshire, the boundary follows the pre-1974 authorities (and also the Great Ouse, less a few small villages on Ely's outskirts.) More of a Cambridge-focused seat, Soham aside. March and Ely (76767) - successor to North East Cambridgeshire; loses Elm & Christchurch, Parson Drove & Wisbech St Mary, Roman Bank and the Wisbech wards; gains Haddenham, Stretham and the Ely wards. Ely looks south rather than north, but the numbers work poorly for this so I'll just have to put up with being in a Fenland-based seat.  Wisbech & King's Lynn (73652) - nominally the successor to North West Norfolk, but probably best treated as a new seat. From Cambridgeshire, Elm & Christchurch, Parson Drove & Wisbech St Mary, Roman Bank and the Wisbech wards; from Norfolk, Emneth with Outwell, Upwell & Delph, Mershe Lande, Wiggenhall, St Lawrence, Walton, Walpole, Spellowfields, Clenchwarton and the King's Lynn wards. Ideally, I'd like to also include North Wootton and South Wootton, which form an area of continuous settlement with King's Lynn, but if you do that then there's no road link between the two halves of Elm & Christchurch ward. As it is this does at least create a good boundary along the Great Ouse. West Norfolk (74100) - successor to South West Norfolk. Gains fifteen wards in the west and north of King's Lynn and West Norfolk district, loses all its Breckland wards bar Nar Valley, Swaffham and Bedingfield. It is theoretically possible to avoid crossing the King's Lynn & West Norfolk/Breckland boundary, but I don't think it's worth it. Mid Norfolk (73789) - after realignment to new ward boundaries, gains Guiltcross, Harling & Heathlands, Forest and the Thetford wards; loses Hermitage, Upper Wensum, Lincoln, Shipdham-with-Scarning and the Dereham wards. The northern boundary looks a little ugly, but parts of Shipdham-with-Scarning form an area of continuous settlement with Dereham so I think the ugliness is permissible under the circumstances. Otherwise reasonably minimum change. South Norfolk (72454) - loses Old Costessey. Minimum change. Norwich South (75061) - gains Old Costessey. Minimum change. Norwich North (74948) - gains the Drayton and Taverham wards, as per the pre-2010 lines. Broadland (77701) - loses its North Norfolk wards, gains Hermitage, Upper Wensum, Lincoln, Shipdham-with-Scarning and the Dereham wards. Fairly similar to the pre-2010 Mid Norfolk, though I can't see too much point in switching names. North Norfolk (74032) - loses Stalham & Sutton and Waterside, gains the rest of North Norfolk district. Great Yarmouth (76581) - gains Stalham & Sutton and Waterside. Acle fits a little better with Great Yarmouth, but not enough as to justify the extra district boundary crossing that would require. You could just add a single ward, but I think two creates a slightly more cohesive whole. Not wholly dissimilar to previous efforts, but it at least avoids the complete hash most of the ones on here have made of St. Ives, and that's something. |
|
