Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 22, 2020 17:30:07 GMT
Further south, though, like a lot of other plans in this area, you've treated Church Crookham as if it were a separate place from Fleet whereas in fact it's simply a southward continuation of it. I'd suggest that this area be kept together if possible, which, if Sandhurst is to be thrown into the mix (as I agree it should be), implies pairings of Farnborough/Sandhurst and Aldershot/Fleet. I posted such a plan some way upthread, and since doing so I've realized that my Bracknell seat could have retained Crowthorne ward. This would have allowed the Farnborough seat to include St Mark's ward, thus putting the boundary between Farnborough and Aldershot in the proper place. (Revised numbers: Bracknell 76021; Farnborough & Sandhurst 74671; Aldershot & Fleet 69371.) I'm aware that Fleet/Crookham is TAIAP a single place, but I think there's something to be said for keeping Rushmoor Borough together in a constituency. Also, although I do prefer to keep towns whole, the village/Zebon/Ewshot area that makes up the West Crookham ward does have a different character from the rest of Fleet/Crookham town. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 22, 2020 18:07:14 GMT
Finally developed a North East plan with 26 seats (no split wards needed either): View Attachment1. Newcastle West & Ponteland 74,571 (succeeds Hexham in practice; safe Labour seat) 2. Berwick & Hexham 71,370 (succeeds Berwick-upon-Tweed; very safe Conservative seat) 3. Morpeth 69,845 (succeeds Wansbeck; marginal Conservative seat) 4. Blyth Valley 74,262 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) 5. Newcastle-upon-Tyne East 70,719 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 6. Newcastle-upon-Tyne North 75,616 (marginal Labour seat) 7. Tynemouth 75,923 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) 8. Wallsend & Hebburn 75,924 (succeeds North Tyneside; very safe Labour seat) 9. South Shields & Jarrow 75,752 (succeeds South Shields; safe Labour seat) 10. Sunderland North & Boldon 73,271 (succeeds Sunderland Central; semi-marginal Labour seat) 11. Washington & Sunderland West 76,032 (adds Shiney Row ward; semi-marginal Labour seat) 12. Blaydon 74,697 (adds Chowdene ward; safe Labour seat) 13. Gateshead 70,007 (safe Labour seat) 14. Houghton & Sunderland South 75,300 (marginal Labour seat) 15. Easington 71,229 (very safe Labour seat) 16. Chester-le-Street 73,521 (succeeds North Durham; marginal Labour seat) 17. Consett 70,631 (succeeds North West Durham; marginal Conservative seat) 18. Bishop Auckland 74,164 (marginal Conservative seat) 19. City of Durham 75,858 (marginal Labour seat) 20. Sedgefield & Billingham 75,753 (succeeds Sedgefield; marginal Conservative seat) 21. Darlington 72,587 (marginal Conservative seat) 22. Stockton & Thornaby 75,984 (succeeds Stockton South; marginal Conservative seat) 23. Hartlepool 73,645 (adds Coatham from Redcar & Cleveland; semi-marginal Labour seat) 24. Middlesbrough West & Yarm 74,963 (new seat; semi-marginal Labour seat) 25. Middlesbrough East 76,155 (succeeds Middlesbrough; semi-marginal Labour seat) 26. Redcar 74,540 (semi-marginal Conservative seat). Abolished: Stockton North, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, Jarrow, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central (-3 Lab, -1 Con) New: Middlesbrough West & Yarm (+1 Lab) Changed from Con to Lab: Blyth Valley. Changed from Lab to Con: Wansbeck [Morpeth]. Totals (notional): 17 Lab, 9 Con. I think you need to check again where it is and isn't possible to cross the Tyne. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 22, 2020 18:52:14 GMT
23. Hartlepool 73,645 (adds Coatham from Redcar & Cleveland; No |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 22, 2020 18:54:10 GMT
Tees Banks
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 22, 2020 18:57:07 GMT
WTF!
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 22, 2020 19:04:54 GMT
Finally developed a North East plan with 26 seats (no split wards needed either): 1. Newcastle West & Ponteland 74,571 (succeeds Hexham in practice; safe Labour seat) 2. Berwick & Hexham 71,370 (succeeds Berwick-upon-Tweed; very safe Conservative seat) 3. Morpeth 69,845 (succeeds Wansbeck; marginal Conservative seat) 4. Blyth Valley 74,262 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) 5. Newcastle-upon-Tyne East 70,719 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 6. Newcastle-upon-Tyne North 75,616 (marginal Labour seat) 7. Tynemouth 75,923 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) 8. Wallsend & Hebburn 75,924 (succeeds North Tyneside; very safe Labour seat) 9. South Shields & Jarrow 75,752 (succeeds South Shields; safe Labour seat) 10. Sunderland North & Boldon 73,271 (succeeds Sunderland Central; semi-marginal Labour seat) 11. Washington & Sunderland West 76,032 (adds Shiney Row ward; semi-marginal Labour seat) 12. Blaydon 74,697 (adds Chowdene ward; safe Labour seat) 13. Gateshead 70,007 (safe Labour seat) 14. Houghton & Sunderland South 75,300 (marginal Labour seat) 15. Easington 71,229 (very safe Labour seat) 16. Chester-le-Street 73,521 (succeeds North Durham; marginal Labour seat) 17. Consett 70,631 (succeeds North West Durham; marginal Conservative seat) 18. Bishop Auckland 74,164 (marginal Conservative seat) 19. City of Durham 75,858 (marginal Labour seat) 20. Sedgefield & Billingham 75,753 (succeeds Sedgefield; marginal Conservative seat) 21. Darlington 72,587 (marginal Conservative seat) 22. Stockton & Thornaby 75,984 (succeeds Stockton South; marginal Conservative seat) 23. Hartlepool 73,645 (adds Coatham from Redcar & Cleveland; semi-marginal Labour seat) 24. Middlesbrough West & Yarm 74,963 (new seat; semi-marginal Labour seat) 25. Middlesbrough East 76,155 (succeeds Middlesbrough; semi-marginal Labour seat) 26. Redcar 74,540 (semi-marginal Conservative seat). Abolished: Stockton North, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, Jarrow, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central (-3 Lab, -1 Con) New: Middlesbrough West & Yarm (+1 Lab) Changed from Con to Lab: Blyth Valley. Changed from Lab to Con: Wansbeck [Morpeth]. Totals (notional): 17 Lab, 9 Con. The point about Wallsend and Hebburn has been made - you could maybe get away with Wallsend and Jarrow (though the ward shapes really don't suit such a configuration) with a connection through the Tyne Tunnel. But Hebburn doesn't link to Wallsend at all, indeed that's probably the worst connected stretch of the river (even South Shields - North Shields has a ferry). And I'd urge you to try and avoid the creation of a massive Berwick and Hexham seat in the rural parts of the county - there's no real easy way of getting between those two without a very long trip and a diversion into Newcastle. Berwick and Morpeth (or even Berwick and Ashington) is a more viable combination. One question: where are you getting your notional figures from, and how do you define marginal, semi-marginal, safe, et cetera? Chowdene ward will have been very marginal (not quite as Conservative as Low Fell, but probably not that far off). So your Blaydon seat would have a majority of 10-11% or so. I would imagine your Washington and Sunderland West has a very similar figure if not higher (Shiney Row is one of the more Labour inclined parts of Houghton & Sunderland S, it will increase Washington's majority above 10%). With that in mind, why is Blaydon safe, given Washington is semi-marginal? Edit: Just noticed Coatham - you definitely shouldn't put that in Hartlepool. And you definitely shouldn't call a seat Redcar if it doesn't have the town centre in it! |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 22, 2020 20:07:21 GMT
Seal Sands.  |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jul 22, 2020 20:10:04 GMT
Should have been in Pitchfork Bait. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 22, 2020 20:12:05 GMT
Finally developed a North East plan with 26 seats (no split wards needed either): 1. Newcastle West & Ponteland 74,571 (succeeds Hexham in practice; safe Labour seat) 2. Berwick & Hexham 71,370 (succeeds Berwick-upon-Tweed; very safe Conservative seat) 3. Morpeth 69,845 (succeeds Wansbeck; marginal Conservative seat) 4. Blyth Valley 74,262 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) 5. Newcastle-upon-Tyne East 70,719 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 6. Newcastle-upon-Tyne North 75,616 (marginal Labour seat) 7. Tynemouth 75,923 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) 8. Wallsend & Hebburn 75,924 (succeeds North Tyneside; very safe Labour seat) 9. South Shields & Jarrow 75,752 (succeeds South Shields; safe Labour seat) 10. Sunderland North & Boldon 73,271 (succeeds Sunderland Central; semi-marginal Labour seat) 11. Washington & Sunderland West 76,032 (adds Shiney Row ward; semi-marginal Labour seat) 12. Blaydon 74,697 (adds Chowdene ward; safe Labour seat) 13. Gateshead 70,007 (safe Labour seat) 14. Houghton & Sunderland South 75,300 (marginal Labour seat) 15. Easington 71,229 (very safe Labour seat) 16. Chester-le-Street 73,521 (succeeds North Durham; marginal Labour seat) 17. Consett 70,631 (succeeds North West Durham; marginal Conservative seat) 18. Bishop Auckland 74,164 (marginal Conservative seat) 19. City of Durham 75,858 (marginal Labour seat) 20. Sedgefield & Billingham 75,753 (succeeds Sedgefield; marginal Conservative seat) 21. Darlington 72,587 (marginal Conservative seat) 22. Stockton & Thornaby 75,984 (succeeds Stockton South; marginal Conservative seat) 23. Hartlepool 73,645 (adds Coatham from Redcar & Cleveland; semi-marginal Labour seat) 24. Middlesbrough West & Yarm 74,963 (new seat; semi-marginal Labour seat) 25. Middlesbrough East 76,155 (succeeds Middlesbrough; semi-marginal Labour seat) 26. Redcar 74,540 (semi-marginal Conservative seat). Abolished: Stockton North, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, Jarrow, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central (-3 Lab, -1 Con) New: Middlesbrough West & Yarm (+1 Lab) Changed from Con to Lab: Blyth Valley. Changed from Lab to Con: Wansbeck [Morpeth]. Totals (notional): 17 Lab, 9 Con. The point about Wallsend and Hebburn has been made - you could maybe get away with Wallsend and Jarrow (though the ward shapes really don't suit such a configuration) with a connection through the Tyne Tunnel. But Hebburn doesn't link to Wallsend at all, indeed that's probably the worst connected stretch of the river (even South Shields - North Shields has a ferry). And I'd urge you to try and avoid the creation of a massive Berwick and Hexham seat in the rural parts of the county - there's no real easy way of getting between those two without a very long trip and a diversion into Newcastle. Berwick and Morpeth (or even Berwick and Ashington) is a more viable combination. One question: where are you getting your notional figures from, and how do you define marginal, semi-marginal, safe, et cetera? Chowdene ward will have been very marginal (not quite as Conservative as Low Fell, but probably not that far off). So your Blaydon seat would have a majority of 10-11% or so. I would imagine your Washington and Sunderland West has a very similar figure if not higher (Shiney Row is one of the more Labour inclined parts of Houghton & Sunderland S, it will increase Washington's majority above 10%). With that in mind, why is Blaydon safe, given Washington is semi-marginal? Edit: Just noticed Coatham - you definitely shouldn't put that in Hartlepool. And you definitely shouldn't call a seat Redcar if it doesn't have the town centre in it! I only put Coatham ward in with Hartepool because of quota requirements-otherwise my Middlesbrough/Redcar seats would have been over the maximum allowed electorate of 76,243. Because of these same quota requirements, a seat involving crossing the Tyne & Wear/Northumberland border at Cramlington is not viable. I have not put in exact notional figures by party as they can be misleading, as the cases of Central Devon and Meon Valley proved at the 2010 general election. I can however get a general idea of which party would have notionally held the redrawn or new seat at the last election. My definitions come from those of Anthony Wells and his UK Polling Report website, which are dependent on the majority of the time, how long a particular party has held a constituency, how consistent their hold has been on said constituency etc. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 22, 2020 20:36:59 GMT
The point about Wallsend and Hebburn has been made - you could maybe get away with Wallsend and Jarrow (though the ward shapes really don't suit such a configuration) with a connection through the Tyne Tunnel. But Hebburn doesn't link to Wallsend at all, indeed that's probably the worst connected stretch of the river (even South Shields - North Shields has a ferry). And I'd urge you to try and avoid the creation of a massive Berwick and Hexham seat in the rural parts of the county - there's no real easy way of getting between those two without a very long trip and a diversion into Newcastle. Berwick and Morpeth (or even Berwick and Ashington) is a more viable combination. One question: where are you getting your notional figures from, and how do you define marginal, semi-marginal, safe, et cetera? Chowdene ward will have been very marginal (not quite as Conservative as Low Fell, but probably not that far off). So your Blaydon seat would have a majority of 10-11% or so. I would imagine your Washington and Sunderland West has a very similar figure if not higher (Shiney Row is one of the more Labour inclined parts of Houghton & Sunderland S, it will increase Washington's majority above 10%). With that in mind, why is Blaydon safe, given Washington is semi-marginal? Edit: Just noticed Coatham - you definitely shouldn't put that in Hartlepool. And you definitely shouldn't call a seat Redcar if it doesn't have the town centre in it! I only put Coatham ward in with Hartepool because of quota requirements-otherwise my Middlesbrough/Redcar seats would have been over the maximum allowed electorate of 76,243. Because of these same quota requirements, a seat involving crossing the Tyne & Wear/Northumberland border at Cramlington is not viable. In general, if you've got an area that won't go within quota, the solution isn't to fix it by doing something absurd. It's to pick a better grouping. When in a hole, stop digging. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 22, 2020 20:44:30 GMT
The point about Wallsend and Hebburn has been made - you could maybe get away with Wallsend and Jarrow (though the ward shapes really don't suit such a configuration) with a connection through the Tyne Tunnel. But Hebburn doesn't link to Wallsend at all, indeed that's probably the worst connected stretch of the river (even South Shields - North Shields has a ferry). And I'd urge you to try and avoid the creation of a massive Berwick and Hexham seat in the rural parts of the county - there's no real easy way of getting between those two without a very long trip and a diversion into Newcastle. Berwick and Morpeth (or even Berwick and Ashington) is a more viable combination. One question: where are you getting your notional figures from, and how do you define marginal, semi-marginal, safe, et cetera? Chowdene ward will have been very marginal (not quite as Conservative as Low Fell, but probably not that far off). So your Blaydon seat would have a majority of 10-11% or so. I would imagine your Washington and Sunderland West has a very similar figure if not higher (Shiney Row is one of the more Labour inclined parts of Houghton & Sunderland S, it will increase Washington's majority above 10%). With that in mind, why is Blaydon safe, given Washington is semi-marginal? Edit: Just noticed Coatham - you definitely shouldn't put that in Hartlepool. And you definitely shouldn't call a seat Redcar if it doesn't have the town centre in it! I only put Coatham ward in with Hartepool because of quota requirements-otherwise my Middlesbrough/Redcar seats would have been over the maximum allowed electorate of 76,243. Because of these same quota requirements, a seat involving crossing the Tyne & Wear/Northumberland border at Cramlington is not viable. I have not put in exact notional figures by party as they can be misleading, as the cases of Central Devon and Meon Valley proved at the 2010 general election. I can however get a general idea of which party would have notionally held the redrawn or new seat at the last election. My definitions come from those of Anthony Wells and his UK Polling Report website, which are dependent on the majority of the time, how long a particular party has held a constituency, how consistent their hold has been on said constituency etc. But you could have crossed the border of Middlesbrough/Redcar elsewhere. The only thing separating the Thornaby wards from those in western Middlesbrough is the A19 - a barrier which is broken in many places and is far more penetrable than a wide estuary. Putting Coatham in Hartlepool is like putting Thamesmead in a Barking seat or the centre of Grimsby in with Holderness! |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 22, 2020 21:07:47 GMT
What about Maidenhead taking parts of Ascot,given most of Ascot's in the RBWM anyway. That works for Maidenhead, but then where does the Windsor seat get its extra electors from? Slough plus the wards covering Windsor proper is 125k, so you need another 15k electors and unless you're crossing a county boundary Ascot is the only feasible option. There's also the issue that if you want to put the entirety of Ascot in with Maidenhead, you have to leave Hurley & Walthams ward out to stay within the quota, which would create an orphan ward. Could you split a ward in Ascot to enable the seat to keep Hurley and Walthams in,because that doesn't seem sensible? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 22, 2020 22:13:50 GMT
I only put Coatham ward in with Hartepool because of quota requirements-otherwise my Middlesbrough/Redcar seats would have been over the maximum allowed electorate of 76,243. Because of these same quota requirements, a seat involving crossing the Tyne & Wear/Northumberland border at Cramlington is not viable. I have not put in exact notional figures by party as they can be misleading, as the cases of Central Devon and Meon Valley proved at the 2010 general election. I can however get a general idea of which party would have notionally held the redrawn or new seat at the last election. My definitions come from those of Anthony Wells and his UK Polling Report website, which are dependent on the majority of the time, how long a particular party has held a constituency, how consistent their hold has been on said constituency etc. But you could have crossed the border of Middlesbrough/Redcar elsewhere. The only thing separating the Thornaby wards from those in western Middlesbrough is the A19 - a barrier which is broken in many places and is far more penetrable than a wide estuary. Putting Coatham in Hartlepool is like putting Thamesmead in a Barking seat or the centre of Grimsby in with Holderness! Almost at Canvey Island & Strood levels, really. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 22, 2020 22:25:09 GMT
The point about Wallsend and Hebburn has been made - you could maybe get away with Wallsend and Jarrow (though the ward shapes really don't suit such a configuration) with a connection through the Tyne Tunnel. But Hebburn doesn't link to Wallsend at all, indeed that's probably the worst connected stretch of the river (even South Shields - North Shields has a ferry). And I'd urge you to try and avoid the creation of a massive Berwick and Hexham seat in the rural parts of the county - there's no real easy way of getting between those two without a very long trip and a diversion into Newcastle. Berwick and Morpeth (or even Berwick and Ashington) is a more viable combination. One question: where are you getting your notional figures from, and how do you define marginal, semi-marginal, safe, et cetera? Chowdene ward will have been very marginal (not quite as Conservative as Low Fell, but probably not that far off). So your Blaydon seat would have a majority of 10-11% or so. I would imagine your Washington and Sunderland West has a very similar figure if not higher (Shiney Row is one of the more Labour inclined parts of Houghton & Sunderland S, it will increase Washington's majority above 10%). With that in mind, why is Blaydon safe, given Washington is semi-marginal? Edit: Just noticed Coatham - you definitely shouldn't put that in Hartlepool. And you definitely shouldn't call a seat Redcar if it doesn't have the town centre in it! I only put Coatham ward in with Hartepool because of quota requirements-otherwise my Middlesbrough/Redcar seats would have been over the maximum allowed electorate of 76,243. Because of these same quota requirements, a seat involving crossing the Tyne & Wear/Northumberland border at Cramlington is not viable. My plan crossed the border at Cramlington: Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 22, 2020 22:36:28 GMT
I only put Coatham ward in with Hartepool because of quota requirements-otherwise my Middlesbrough/Redcar seats would have been over the maximum allowed electorate of 76,243. Because of these same quota requirements, a seat involving crossing the Tyne & Wear/Northumberland border at Cramlington is not viable. My plan crossed the border at Cramlington: And kept Hartlepool intact, and ensured more compact constituencies in rural Northumberland. The Middlesbrough arrangement is a great downside though-there is no way the BCE will allow "Middlesbrough South, Yarm and Eston". |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 22, 2020 22:50:54 GMT
My plan crossed the border at Cramlington: And kept Hartlepool intact, and ensured more compact constituencies in rural Northumberland. The Middlesbrough arrangement is a great downside though-there is no way the BCE will allow "Middlesbrough South, Yarm and Eston". I think you mean "West Cleveland". :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 23, 2020 0:34:13 GMT
That works for Maidenhead, but then where does the Windsor seat get its extra electors from? Slough plus the wards covering Windsor proper is 125k, so you need another 15k electors and unless you're crossing a county boundary Ascot is the only feasible option. There's also the issue that if you want to put the entirety of Ascot in with Maidenhead, you have to leave Hurley & Walthams ward out to stay within the quota, which would create an orphan ward. I wouldn't treat Berkshire separately because of adverse numbers elsewhere in the region; but if you were going to: -
Slough (as EAL has it above) - 70091 Windsor (existing seat gains the Cippenhams and Bray, loses all its Bracknell Forest wards) - 72458 Bracknell (existing seat gains Winkfield and Ascot (the Bracknell Forest ward) and loses its Wokingham wards) - 70749 Maidenhead (existing seat minus Bray and Hurst) - 69757
Reading E (existing seat minus Loddon) - 70322
Reading W (existing seat minus Pangbourne and Theale) - 69908
Newbury (also as per EAL) - 72229
That leaves you with a contiguous mass of wards in the middle of the county with a total of 139990 electors. You can split this area by taking the four wards of Wokingham town plus Wokingham Rural, Finchampstead N, Winnersh, Loddon, Bray and the two left-over wards of Bracknell Forest (Binfield and Warfield) for a compact Wokingham seat.
Wokingham - 69117 Mid Berks - 70873
QED
Mid Berks or Reading Outer will be hideous. It will have to cover 2 local authorities in an area where all the public transport are North-South,there would be multiple diametrically opposed groups of voters in the seat and the seat would be disconnected from Reading,which is where most of the communities look towards. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 23, 2020 0:41:01 GMT
What about Maidenhead taking parts of Ascot,given most of Ascot's in the RBWM anyway. That works for Maidenhead, but then where does the Windsor seat get its extra electors from? Slough plus the wards covering Windsor proper is 125k, so you need another 15k electors and unless you're crossing a county boundary Ascot is the only feasible option. There's also the issue that if you want to put the entirety of Ascot in with Maidenhead, you have to leave Hurley & Walthams ward out to stay within the quota, which would create an orphan ward. Another thought I had, you could add Burnham Lent Rise and Farnham Commpn & Cliveden from Bucks. Would that make Slough and Windsor proper enough for 2 seats? These are a much better demographic fit for Windsor anyway. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,725
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 23, 2020 6:46:32 GMT
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 23, 2020 6:55:22 GMT
London, based on 75 seats @72296
Havering, Barking, Redbridge, Waltham Forest 9
Newham, Tower Hamlets 5
Islington, City 2
Enfield, Barnet 6
Hackney, Haringey, Camden, Westminster 8
Brent, Harrow 5
Kensington, Hammersmith, Ealing, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond 12-ish (Barnes --> Putney)
Lambeth 3
Southwark 3
Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham 7
Sutton 2
Bromley, Croydon, Merton, Wandsworth, Kingston 13-ish
SW London is tricky...
|
|
