2018 Review - East of England

[longmonty]

Sept 4, 2016 21:37:31 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

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.

Not sure that's really 'minimising change' ?

My scheme below.
Minor drawback is the Fenland seat has 3 LAs - but then my S Cambs has only 1, so no more LA boundaries crossed than yours - but I have both Ely and St Ives in the right seats, and at least 10,000 fewer voters shifted between seats.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I like the overall idea, but there are a couple of problems with specific wards. Fulbourn and Teversham need to be in the same seat, because there's an area of contiguous settlement between them (an area which is de facto Cherry Hinton, but we have to accept that the LA boundaries are horribly out of date around Cambridge.) You also want to put Longstanton in the same seat as Oakington, as a major housing development crossing the boundary is just beginning there (the same development is the reason why South Cambs has its weird spur taking in Cottenham.) I think you should be able to fix both these issues with a ward swap or two.

Whilst I personally like your North East Cambs, I think it'll be a harder sell to have a seat crossing the Fenland/Huntingdonshire boundary than the South Cambs/Huntingdonshire boundary, because the former is more identifiable on the ground and there aren't major transport arteries across the former.

[greenhert]

Sept 5, 2016 9:55:48 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I like the overall idea, but there are a couple of problems with specific wards. Fulbourn and Teversham need to be in the same seat, because there's an area of contiguous settlement between them (an area which is de facto Cherry Hinton, but we have to accept that the LA boundaries are horribly out of date around Cambridge.) You also want to put Longstanton in the same seat as Oakington, as a major housing development crossing the boundary is just beginning there (the same development is the reason why South Cambs has its weird spur taking in Cottenham.) I think you should be able to fix both these issues with a ward swap or two.

Whilst I personally like your North East Cambs, I think it'll be a harder sell to have a seat crossing the Fenland/Huntingdonshire boundary than the South Cambs/Huntingdonshire boundary, because the former is more identifiable on the ground and there aren't major transport arteries across the former.

I agree with you and so do some friends of mine-how much further should Cambridge's boundaries extend to actually represent the city of Cambridge? I am certain about how far Norwich's boundaries should now extend (and clearly so did the Boundary Commission when they re-drew Norwich North in 1983 to include suburbs technically in Broadland DC) but not that sure about how far Cambridge's boundaries should now extend.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Relations between the city authority and the county council and surrounding district(s) in Cambridge are actually a lot better than they are in Norwich. (The party control is effectively the same - a Labour city council surrounded by Tory districts.) All the local authorities were keen to get the Greater Cambridge City Deal agreed. Cambridge needs to boost its economy with development, but doesn't have any land; South Cambridgeshire wants to keep development around Cambridge and Cambourne and not the rural villages, and the County just wants to know where to put the roads, so there's something in it for everyone.

In Norwich there's still a lot of antagonism over the unitary bid. I get the impression they felt they had to go for a Greater Norwich City Deal but no-one really feels much enthusiasm for it.

[East Anglian Lefty]

The current city council leader is in favour of merging South Cambs and Cambridge into a single unitary, but there's a lot of opposition to this in the local party for all the obvious reasons, so he hasn't pushed it. It'd be good to tidy up the Cambridge-South Cambs border by moving areas like Gazelle Way, Chesterton Fen, the Meadows and Orchard Park into Cambridge, but that opens several cans of worms so there's not much chance of it happening soon. Areas beyond that have interests that are inseparable from those of Cambridge, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are Cambridge.

[greenhert]

On the subject of new unitary authorities in East Anglia...

Cambridgeshire:

1. Part of East Cambridgeshire should be merged with most of South Cambridgeshire (i.e. the villages that are clearly not suburbs of the city of Cambridge) and form a Cambridgeshire UA.
2. Fenland and part of East Cambridgeshire with the city of Ely and the town of Littleport should be merged to recreate the old Isle of Ely authority, this time as a unitary authority.
3. Huntingdon(shire) then becomes a unitary authority (Peterborough already is one) instead of merely a district council.

Hertfordshire:

1. Merge East Herts and Broxbourne to form East Hertfordshire council.
2. Merge Watford and Three Rivers, and add the town of Bushey, to form a South West Hertfordshire council.
3. St Albans remains unchanged in composition and becomes Central Hertfordshire council (because Harpenden is also in St Albans BC).
4. Welwyn Hatfield adds Hertsmere (minus Bushey) and forms South Hertfordshire council.
5. North Herts and Stevenage could merge to form a North Herts council.
6. Dacorum just changes its name to Dacorum Council (as opposed to Dacorum DC).

Suffolk:

1. Ipswich remains unchanged.
2. Bury St Edmunds and Forest Heath merge to become a new West Suffolk council.
3. Waveney remains unchanged.
4. Babergh and part of Suffolk Coastal councils merge to become a South Suffolk council.
5. Mid Suffolk merges with the rest of Suffolk Coastal and becomes East Suffolk.

Essex (non-unitarised):

1. Uttlesford gains the town of Halstead from Braintree district and becomes a new Saffron Walden council.
2. Braintree council meanwhile annexes northern rural parts of Chelmsford.
3. Rochford merges with Castle Point and forms South East Essex council.
4. Basildon remains unchanged in composition.
5. The majority of Chelmsford merges with Maldon to form a Central Essex council.
6. Colchester and Tendring merge to form a North East Essex council.
7. Harlow and Epping Forest merge to form a South West Essex council.
8. Brentwood gains westerly rural parts of Chelmsford.

Norfolk:

1. Norwich expands to gain Taverham, Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston, Drayton, and Costessey.
2. Great Yarmouth remains unchanged in composition.
3. King's Lynn and West Norfolk remains unchanged in composition.
4. The southern half of Breckland merges with what remains of South Norfolk to form a new South Norfolk council.
5. The northern half of Breckland absorbs what remains of Broadland to become a Central Norfolk council.
6. North Norfolk remains intact.

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 6, 2016 10:02:32 GMT greenhert said:

On the subject of new unitary authorities in East Anglia...

Cambridgeshire:

1. Part of East Cambridgeshire should be merged with most of South Cambridgeshire (i.e. the villages that are clearly not suburbs of the city of Cambridge) and form a Cambridgeshire UA.
2. Fenland and part of East Cambridgeshire with the city of Ely and the town of Littleport should be merged to recreate the old Isle of Ely authority, this time as a unitary authority.
3. Huntingdon(shire) then becomes a unitary authority (Peterborough already is one) instead of merely a district council.

Hertfordshire:

1. Merge East Herts and Broxbourne to form East Hertfordshire council.
2. Merge Watford and Three Rivers, and add the town of Bushey, to form a South West Hertfordshire council.
3. St Albans remains unchanged in composition and becomes Central Hertfordshire council (because Harpenden is also in St Albans BC).
4. Welwyn Hatfield adds Hertsmere (minus Bushey) and forms South Hertfordshire council.
5. North Herts and Stevenage could merge to form a North Herts council.
6. Dacorum just changes its name to Dacorum Council (as opposed to Dacorum DC).




.

I agree with your Cambridgeshire proposals entirely. I think some of the areas elsewhere may be a bit small for unitaries, though i'm broadly in agreement with what you're doing in Hertfordshire - one detail is that Aldenham parish (Radlett) from Hertsmere would fit better with either Watford or St Albans that with your South Herts.
Actually I'd probably go for fewer councils. Stick with your East Herts and North Herts but then have a West Herts comprising Dacorum, Three Rivers, Watford and Bushey and a Central Herts combining St Albans with Welwyn Hatfield and the remainder of Hertsmere.
There's also a case for just having two very large unitaries for Herts, East and West covering five districts each

[East Anglian Lefty]

On the other hand, I think your Cambridgeshire proposals are wrong on just about every level.

1. There's no real point having a Not Cambridge unitary, because you'll only have to change the boundaries in ten years when the border villages are far too obviously linked to Cambridge (and if you're already including Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town in Greater Cambridge, then Not Cambridge is unsustainable);

2. It isn't 1974 any more and Ely is a Cambridge dormitory town (trust me, it's why we moved here.) The Isle of Ely is a historical relic. Accept this;

3. Huntingdonshire is too small to work well as a unitary.

You could conceivably do a relatively expansive Greater Cambridge and have a single unitary authority covering the rest. But given the financial pressures the age profile and rapid population growth place on Cambridgeshire, wasting money on local government reorganisation is not sensible at this point in time anyway.

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 6, 2016 20:10:32 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

On the other hand, I think your Cambridgeshire proposals are wrong on just about every level.

1. There's no real point having a Not Cambridge unitary, because you'll only have to change the boundaries in ten years when the border villages are far too obviously linked to Cambridge (and if you're already including Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town in Greater Cambridge, then Not Cambridge is unsustainable);

I took it that his Cambridgeshire unitary would include Cambrdige, ie the pre-1974 Cambridgeshire without the Idle of Ely. I may have got that wrong (reading it again I think I did), but thats the proposal I was endorsing

[East Anglian Lefty]

That's slightly more defensible, though it has no practical advantages over a Cambridge-South Cambridgeshire UA and some significant disadvantages (disruption to existing lines, the fact that the Ely area is better linked to Cambridge than the Soham area, leaving too small a rump behind).

Mind you, I'm also opposed to most Cambridge unitary solutions on partisan grounds, at least for now.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Electoral Calculus Initial Proposals Vote Projections

Row 1 column 1	Row 1 column 2	Row 1 column 3	Row 1 column 4	Row 1 column 5	Row 1 column 6	Row 1 column 7
Row 2 column 1	Row 2 column 2	Row 2 column 3	Row 2 column 4	Row 2 column 5	Row 2 column 6	Row 2 column 7
Row 3 column 1	Row 3 column 2	Row 3 column 3	Row 3 column 4	Row 3 column 5	Row 3 column 6	Row 3 column 7
Row 4 column 1	Row 4 column 2	Row 4 column 3	Row 4 column 4	Row 4 column 5	Row 4 column 6	Row 4 column 7
Row 5 column 1	Row 5 column 2	Row 5 column 3	Row 5 column 4	Row 5 column 5	Row 5 column 6	Row 5 column 7
Row 6 column 1	Row 6 column 2	Row 6 column 3	Row 6 column 4	Row 6 column 5	Row 6 column 6	Row 6 column 7
Row 7 column 1	Row 7 column 2	Row 7 column 3	Row 7 column 4	Row 7 column 5	Row 7 column 6	Row 7 column 7

[Adrian]

East England proposals s3.helpfulclients.com/bce/East-Midlands-Initial-proposals-region-map.pdf

Interesting. Norfolk okay but only takes a small bite out of Cambs, which also gives two wards to Herts. This helps Herts but is a bit of a cheat. Essex is similar to one of my plans.

[justin124]

Both Norwich seats become Labour-Tory marginal if these proposals are accepted. Labour's Clive Lewis will be much less safe , but on the other hand the shift of a ward from Norwich South to Norwich North improves Labour prospects quite a bit there.

[sirbenjamin]

Even in the county with minimal change required - Suffolk - they make things messier than they need to be.

Ipswich needs an extra ward to meet the quota, but instead of taking in one of the three actual Ipswich wards currently excluded from the seat, they bring in Pinewood from South Suffolk/Babergh, which then in turn has to take in wards from Bury St Edmunds... I lived in the area for some years, and I know that Pinewood is a sort of toytown suburb of Ipswich, but I think there is a more elegant solution:

Ipswich - as current seat PLUS the Castle Hill ward from Suffolk Central & Ipswich North - 76284
Suffolk Central - as current seat LESS Castle Hill PLUS Gislingham and Rickinghall & Walsham from Bury St Edmunds - 74451
Bury St Edmunds - as current seat LESS Gislingham and Rickinghall & Walsham - 77642

All other seats in Suffolk unaffected and within quota, and avoids the strangeness of an incomplete Ipswich taking in non-Ipswich wards. Better than the proposal, I reckon.

[Andrew_S]

There are 6 unchanged seats in the Eastern region:

Chelmsford
Epping Forest
Hitchin & Harpenden
Thurrock
Waveney
West Suffolk

(The fact that they've managed to spell a new constituency as "Whitham and Maldon CC" in the spreadsheet doesn't inspire confidence).

[mattb]

Epping Forest is not unchanged?

[Andrew_S]

Sept 13, 2016 14:45:09 GMT mattb said:

Epping Forest is not unchanged?

According to the official spreadsheet it appears to be unchanged with 73,521 electors.

[mattb]

I stand corrected

[Pete Whitehead]

I do believe mattb and ColinJ are both joining me in the St Albans constituency

[East Anglian Lefty]

Initial thoughts:

1. Bedfordshire is very good. You could split Bedford borough only two ways if you chose, but this way is superior on minimum change grounds;
2. Adding two Cambridgeshire wards to Hertfordshire isn't strictly necessary, but it does seem to make things slightly easier. And the wards added do have decent links to Royston;
3. There are way too many orphan wards, most of which I'm fairly sure could be eliminated without much trouble;
4. Pinewood in Ipswich makes sense, but South Suffolk's arm into Mid-Suffolk district is ugly;
5. Similarly Littleport going into SW Norfolk makes sense, because it's got much better road links to Downham Market than to Fenland. However, it looks less good if you can't then tidy up the orphan wards in Cambridgeshire;
6. Obviously I like Peterborough;
7. I like the solution for Norwich, both on partisan grounds and on practical ones (it's hard to claim that Cringleford is really more remote from Norwich than Taverham is.) However, internal links would be better if you swapped Wensum for Thorpe Hamlet;
8. Leaving Jaywick out of Clacton is an absurdity - far better to remove Little Clacton instead.

EDIT: 9. Adding Milton to Cambridge is completely unnecessary under any sensible scheme. It looks like the BCE have been forced to do this because they've overpopulated the Cambridgeshire seats to get the Norfolk ones small enough. I think they're going to need to put more of Cambridgeshire into Norfolk than just Littleport.