Comments on: Derby North

By: Kieran W

Kieran W — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:57:40 +0000

“I think Labour’s plans are wacky…”

The Lib Dem plan is also pretty ridiculous.

By: A Cairns

A Cairns — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:36:23 +0000

I think Labour’s plans are wacky so I was deliberately ignoring them.

They’ve been a bit silly really as the East Midlands plans weren’t really that bad for them on the whole and they should have argued for tweaks here and there.

By: Kieran W

Kieran W — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:24:00 +0000

Here are the main parties proposals for Derby:

http://ukelect.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/everything-derby/

I can’t believe that Labour and the Lib Dems are serious about their plans. Labour want a Derby West & Belper seat including the Derby wards mentioned in my above post and a chunk of rural territory linking them with Belper. The Lib Dems want to preserve Mid Derbyshire and have it taking in territory not far from the centre of Derby. Both seem to be bending over backwards to have Derby City wards that they consider too Tory included in seats not centred on Derby.

By: Andy JS

Andy JS — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:32:55 +0000

There must be a chance that Margaret Beckett will retire and her safe seat be taken by Chris Williamson who might otherwise have problems holding a reconfigured Derby North constituency.

By: Shaun Bennett

Shaun Bennett — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:12:10 +0000

Yes, that sounds like one of those examples that the commission might adopt then so long as it looks sensible and holds some local support.

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:32:06 +0000

That does sound more sensible than the initial proposals and infinitley more so than the counter proposals of the other parties.

By: Kieran W

Kieran W — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:35:51 +0000

Were the Commission to ditch their own proposals and adopt the Tory ones there would be no knock on implications for seats outside Derby, just a straight swap of two wards. Derby West would swap Abbey and Arboretum for Oakwood and Derwent to become Derby North.

By: John Chanin

John Chanin — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:26:08 +0000

Good speculation Shaun. This is certainly what I am expecting. Any objections or changes proposed have to consider knock-on effects if they are to be listened to, and the +/- 5% rule makes this more difficult, as well as the wider region that has to be considered now that county boundaries are being crossed. I’m sure Pete Whitehead can confirm this. I am certainly struggling in some areas to improve what on the surface are daft proposals.

However the political parties have large staffs, computers, and both time and incentive. Their problem is not to be too partisan (as described by Kieran), and even so they are a suspect source.

By: Shaun Bennett

Shaun Bennett — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:51:43 +0000

Presumably, all will depend on what knock-on effects the proposed changes would have accross the rest of the county, since they all have to stack up.

On the new boundary commission rules, you can’t just make changes to one part of the area without going back and looking at how it affects the rest of the area as a whole.

I wonder whether for that reason, we’ll see the commissions final proposals at this review looking more like their initial proposals than ever before?

By: Kieran W

Kieran W — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:00:56 +0000

All of the three main parties have submitted counter proposals for redrawing the Derby constituencies. In terms of minimizing the crossing of the Derby City boundary the Tory plans are the most sensible. They envisage the two Derby constituencies including all Derby City wards other than Boulton and Chaddesden, as is the case with the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals.

Under Labour’s proposals the Derby constituencies would exclude Allestree, Mickleover and Littelover, but bring in Aston and Ockbrook & Borrowash wards from outside the city. The Lib Dem plan meanwhile would exclude Oakwood, Derwent and Chaddesden and also bring in Aston.

To me there is absolutely no need for either of the two Derby constituencies to include wards from outside the city, or for excluding more then two Derby City wards from the Derby seats. I would imagine the commission will feel the same way. I would therefore be very surprised if the final plan is not either the commission’s initial proposal or that submitted by the local Tories. Certainly the latter seems to be the best way of continuing to divide Derby north/south as opposed to east/west.

Ultimately much might depend on how bothered local people who take an interest are by the switch from a north/south to an east/west split. The former has the advantage of familiarity and minimizing change, but the geography of the city does perhaps lend itself more to a divide using the railway line running north to south.