|
|
Post by emidsanorak on May 2, 2021 7:45:41 GMT
One problem with second-guessing BCE’s proposals is that we don’t know what lengths they are prepared to go to keep constituencies unchanged. The only current seat within quota in South Tyneside/Sunderland is Sunderland Central. I haven’t found a way of keeping Sunderland Central unchanged while keeping Gateshead intact. So we might end up with:  Consett & Blaydon (70163) Gateshead East & Jarrow (71106) Gateshead West (70994) Houghton & Sunderland South West (76883) South Shields (69725) Sunderland Central (72688) Washington & Birtley (71775) It’s a reasonable scheme in every respect except that it doesn’t treat Gateshead as a sub-region. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on May 2, 2021 8:28:22 GMT
A Consett/Blaydon seat can then lead to a fairly reasonable County Durham:  Bishop Auckland (70879) Chester-le-Street (73079) City of Durham (72878) Consett & Blaydon (70163) Easington (71301) Spennymoor (70041) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 2, 2021 9:04:56 GMT
Keeping South Shields intact, too. As a town that's always been a constituency, remains the right size for a constituency, is in a corner of the map and has shown its pitchforks during the last review, it's really somewhat bemusing that all but three plans in this thread tear it to pieces.
Obviously the Blaysett seat itself is far from reasonable...
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 2, 2021 19:54:18 GMT
One problem with second-guessing BCE’s proposals is that we don’t know what lengths they are prepared to go to keep constituencies unchanged. The only current seat within quota in South Tyneside/Sunderland is Sunderland Central. I haven’t found a way of keeping Sunderland Central unchanged while keeping Gateshead intact. So we might end up with: Consett & Blaydon (70163) Gateshead East & Jarrow (71106) Gateshead West (70994) Houghton & Sunderland South West (76883) South Shields (69725) Sunderland Central (72688) Washington & Birtley (71775) It’s a reasonable scheme in every respect except that it doesn’t treat Gateshead as a sub-region. It also limits the change in Jarrow, which would essentially be abolished as a constituency if Gateshead received exactly two seats. Houghton & Sunderland South West should simply read Houghton & Sunderland West. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on May 2, 2021 22:50:37 GMT
East Anglian Lefty Washington D is the best option in my view. The only issue is the awkwardness of Lumley/Sacriston, but that’s still better than excluding Lanchester ward from Consett, and everything else in the county works well. The alternatives that include things like a ‘south east Durham’ constituency and chucking the city of Durham in with parts of south Durham are to be avoided if possible (though I myself proposed a Durham-Spennymoor seat for the last review as the least worst option).
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 5, 2021 9:45:08 GMT
FWIW, emidsanorak's Gateshead map shifts just under 170k electors between constituencies. Given that having two seats entirely in Gateshead shifts around 20k electors between seats, it looks like the best combination you could get to using my maps is about 195k. So adding Gateshead in to the group is certainly better from a minimum change perspective. I'm not wild about Easington extending down to Sedgefield and Blaysett is certainly ugly, but otherwise I think it's a reasonably decent map so it's probably the best fit to the statutory criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 9, 2021 17:09:09 GMT
 how pitchfork-y is this, and who wins each of the seats under 2017 and 2019 conditions? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2021 18:56:56 GMT
Yeah, you're getting burnt in a wicker man. Consett and Barnard Castle is a bad enough idea, connecting it to Northumberland via upper Weardale is practically performance art.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 9, 2021 18:59:44 GMT
Hexham is at least arguably the objectively correct seat to butcher in Northumberland, but they do have both pitchforks and the editor's address, and anyways that... thing... (Consett & Assorted Emptyness) isn't how to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 9, 2021 19:01:03 GMT
Yeah, you're getting burnt in a wicker man. Consett and Barnard Castle is a bad enough idea, connecting it to Northumberland via upper Weardale is practically performance art. He's connecting it to the upper dales via Northumberland! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2021 19:14:15 GMT
It's a very pretty drive from one end of the constituency to the other. Not a particularly practical one, however.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Jun 7, 2021 12:54:47 GMT
Any last minute predictions of the horror show the BCE will likely produce?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 7, 2021 13:40:17 GMT
Berwick & Barnard Castle is a legal seat. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 7, 2021 14:05:49 GMT
Berwick & Barnard Castle is a legal seat. Just saying. post the whole map please! |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 7, 2021 14:27:53 GMT
 Maybe more appropriate for the pitchfork thread! |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 8, 2021 0:35:20 GMT
Firstly, forgive these ramblings. I'll type something more coherent in the morning, but I want to react immediately to the initial North East proposals. Overall, they are... not too bad? They're not perfect, but far from the horrors seen previously.
The Wansbeck constituency is split - most of it joins with Blyth while Morpeth joins with Berwick. The rural ward snaking around Morpeth (Longhorsley) is added to Hexham, which looks terrible on the map, but is probably the least bad option (Hexham also gains the semi-rural Callerton and Throckley ward from Newcastle, which is sensible).
Cramlington is treated as part of North Tyneside, which makes a lot of sense - though perhaps surprisingly it is put in with Whitley Bay. Tynemouth then gains Wallsend and the surrounding area to compensate for the loss of its northern half. That leaves Longbenton and Killingworth, which join with Gosforth in a radically altered Newcastle upon Tyne North seat. Gone are the days when the city's western suburbs were inexplicably described as "North"!
Those aformentioned western suburbs are appropriately now in the Newcastle upon Tyne West seat, which is a successor to Central but without the city centre. Those central areas now join Newcastle upon Tyne East. Confusingly though, this "East" constituency includes Arthur's Hill, considered by many to be the heart of the city's "West End".
They've gone for two seats entirely within Gateshead borough, and the two they've drawn are fine. Dunston and Teams is now in Blaydon (which makes sense for the former, but not really the latter), and the two wards which used to be in Jarrow constituency are now in Gateshead.
The best thing I can say about South Tyneside and Sunderland is that they've retained the Sunderland Central seat and their enlarged South Shields is pretty good. The rest isn't great. The A19 means it's easy to drive from one end of Jarrow and Sunderland West to the other, but it's not really a natural community and you get the feeling it was only created because it happens to be 38 voters above the quota. Washington and Sunderland South West is another odd seat - the name is too long for my liking and again there's no obvious link between those three urban Sunderland wards and the more suburban Washington and Shiney Row. Finally, some wards from the fringes of the city have been added to County Durham constituencies. Houghton and Hetton are added to City of Durham, which isn't a bad shout - they are very much County Durham communities and look to Durham city just as much as they do to Sunderland. But to put it mildly, I'm struggling to see the merits of adding Doxford to a renamed Easington seat - are the Boundary Commission just obsessed with the A19?
Having said that, the rest of County Durham is probably the plan's strongest area. North West Durham takes in many of the former mining villages immediately west of the city, which seems sensible. The other changes such as Burnopfield moving to North Durham or Brandon and Willington moving into Bishop Auckland also seem logical. Perhaps the only thing I'd quibble on is the renaming of Sedgefield - I'm not a huge fan of compound names, and personally don't think that Newton Aycliffe is a significant enough place to be worth mentioning. But that's probably a bit of prejudice - I realise it has a big population, it just feels like it doesn't have many facilities.
They went for the obvious pattern in Darlington, and their arrangement in Stockton looks fine. Obviously in an ideal world Thornaby wouldn't get split but it's pretty much unavoidable and I think they've done it in the best possible way. Middlesbrough is a bit of a mess, with the new Redcar and Eston seat taking a big bite out of the borough. Given they follow the line of the A174 Parkway, my guess is yet again road layouts have been the main influence on their choice of boundaries. In better news, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has gained Marske which pairs nicely with Saltburn and unites everything outside of Redcar and Eston in the Redcar and Cleveland council.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 0:44:00 GMT
Firstly, forgive these ramblings. I'll type something more coherent in the morning, but I want to react immediately to the initial North East proposals. Overall, they are... not too bad? They're not perfect, but far from the horrors seen previously. The Wansbeck constituency is split - most of it joins with Blyth while Morpeth joins with Berwick. The rural ward snaking around Morpeth (Longhorsley) is added to Hexham, which looks terrible on the map, but is probably the least bad option (Hexham also gains the semi-rural Callerton and Throckley ward from Newcastle, which is sensible). Cramlington is treated as part of North Tyneside, which makes a lot of sense - though perhaps surprisingly it is put in with Whitley Bay. Tynemouth then gains Wallsend and the surrounding area to compensate for the loss of its northern half. That leaves Longbenton and Killingworth, which join with Gosforth in a radically altered Newcastle upon Tyne North seat. Gone are the days when the city's western suburbs were inexplicably described as "North"! Those aformentioned western suburbs are appropriately now in the Newcastle upon Tyne West seat, which is a successor to Central but without the city centre. Those central areas now join Newcastle upon Tyne East. Confusingly though, this "East" constituency includes Arthur's Hill, considered by many to be the heart of the city's "West End". They've gone for two seats entirely within Gateshead borough, and the two they've drawn are fine. Dunston and Teams is now in Blaydon (which makes sense for the former, but not really the latter), and the two wards which used to be in Jarrow constituency are now in Gateshead. The best thing I can say about South Tyneside and Sunderland is that they've retained the Sunderland Central seat and their enlarged South Shields is pretty good. The rest isn't great. The A19 means it's easy to drive from one end of Jarrow and Sunderland West to the other, but it's not really a natural community and you get the feeling it was only created because it happens to be 38 voters above the quota. Washington and Sunderland South West is another odd seat - the name is too long for my liking and again there's no obvious link between those three urban Sunderland wards and the more suburban Washington and Shiney Row. Finally, some wards from the fringes of the city have been added to County Durham constituencies. Houghton and Hetton are added to City of Durham, which isn't a bad shout - they are very much County Durham communities and look to Durham city just as much as they do to Sunderland. But to put it mildly, I'm struggling to see the merits of adding Doxford to a renamed Easington seat - are the Boundary Commission just obsessed with the A19? Having said that, the rest of County Durham is probably the plan's strongest area. North West Durham takes in many of the former mining villages immediately west of the city, which seems sensible. The other changes such as Burnopfield moving to North Durham or Brandon and Willington moving into Bishop Auckland also seem logical. Perhaps the only thing I'd quibble on is the renaming of Sedgefield - I'm not a huge fan of compound names, and personally don't think that Newton Aycliffe is a significant enough place to be worth mentioning. But that's probably a bit of prejudice - I realise it has a big population, it just feels like it doesn't have many facilities. They went for the obvious pattern in Darlington, and their arrangement in Stockton looks fine. Obviously in an ideal world Thornaby wouldn't get split but it's pretty much unavoidable and I think they've done it in the best possible way. Middlesbrough is a bit of a mess, with the new Redcar and Eston seat taking a big bite out of the borough. Given they follow the line of the A174 Parkway, my guess is yet again road layouts have been the main influence on their choice of boundaries. In better news, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has gained Marske which pairs nicely with Saltburn and unites everything outside of Redcar and Eston in the Redcar and Cleveland council. My immediate reaction re political impact is that Labour won't mind this map. Stockton South West and MSEC are probably unwinnable but Redcar looks a bit better, Cramlington is neutralised and the Wansbeck seat has been mostly retained but without a couple of rural bits. The west Durham seats also look o for us but it's not an are I know much about |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 8, 2021 1:20:10 GMT
Firstly, forgive these ramblings. I'll type something more coherent in the morning, but I want to react immediately to the initial North East proposals. Overall, they are... not too bad? They're not perfect, but far from the horrors seen previously. The Wansbeck constituency is split - most of it joins with Blyth while Morpeth joins with Berwick. The rural ward snaking around Morpeth (Longhorsley) is added to Hexham, which looks terrible on the map, but is probably the least bad option (Hexham also gains the semi-rural Callerton and Throckley ward from Newcastle, which is sensible). Cramlington is treated as part of North Tyneside, which makes a lot of sense - though perhaps surprisingly it is put in with Whitley Bay. Tynemouth then gains Wallsend and the surrounding area to compensate for the loss of its northern half. That leaves Longbenton and Killingworth, which join with Gosforth in a radically altered Newcastle upon Tyne North seat. Gone are the days when the city's western suburbs were inexplicably described as "North"! Those aformentioned western suburbs are appropriately now in the Newcastle upon Tyne West seat, which is a successor to Central but without the city centre. Those central areas now join Newcastle upon Tyne East. Confusingly though, this "East" constituency includes Arthur's Hill, considered by many to be the heart of the city's "West End". They've gone for two seats entirely within Gateshead borough, and the two they've drawn are fine. Dunston and Teams is now in Blaydon (which makes sense for the former, but not really the latter), and the two wards which used to be in Jarrow constituency are now in Gateshead. The best thing I can say about South Tyneside and Sunderland is that they've retained the Sunderland Central seat and their enlarged South Shields is pretty good. The rest isn't great. The A19 means it's easy to drive from one end of Jarrow and Sunderland West to the other, but it's not really a natural community and you get the feeling it was only created because it happens to be 38 voters above the quota. Washington and Sunderland South West is another odd seat - the name is too long for my liking and again there's no obvious link between those three urban Sunderland wards and the more suburban Washington and Shiney Row. Finally, some wards from the fringes of the city have been added to County Durham constituencies. Houghton and Hetton are added to City of Durham, which isn't a bad shout - they are very much County Durham communities and look to Durham city just as much as they do to Sunderland. But to put it mildly, I'm struggling to see the merits of adding Doxford to a renamed Easington seat - are the Boundary Commission just obsessed with the A19? Having said that, the rest of County Durham is probably the plan's strongest area. North West Durham takes in many of the former mining villages immediately west of the city, which seems sensible. The other changes such as Burnopfield moving to North Durham or Brandon and Willington moving into Bishop Auckland also seem logical. Perhaps the only thing I'd quibble on is the renaming of Sedgefield - I'm not a huge fan of compound names, and personally don't think that Newton Aycliffe is a significant enough place to be worth mentioning. But that's probably a bit of prejudice - I realise it has a big population, it just feels like it doesn't have many facilities. They went for the obvious pattern in Darlington, and their arrangement in Stockton looks fine. Obviously in an ideal world Thornaby wouldn't get split but it's pretty much unavoidable and I think they've done it in the best possible way. Middlesbrough is a bit of a mess, with the new Redcar and Eston seat taking a big bite out of the borough. Given they follow the line of the A174 Parkway, my guess is yet again road layouts have been the main influence on their choice of boundaries. In better news, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has gained Marske which pairs nicely with Saltburn and unites everything outside of Redcar and Eston in the Redcar and Cleveland council. My immediate reaction re political impact is that Labour won't mind this map. Stockton South West and MSEC are probably unwinnable but Redcar looks a bit better, Cramlington is neutralised and the Wansbeck seat has been mostly retained but without a couple of rural bits. The west Durham seats also look o for us but it's not an are I know much about I'll try to work out the partisan implications properly tomorrow. However, I do have some gut feelings now. Stockton North looks much better for Labour now - the incoming Parkfield and Oxbridge ward is very strongly Labour while Western is anything but. In County Durham, I'm pretty sure Bishop Auckland is going to be a bit more Labour (mainly due to Brandon), but not by a huge margin, and there is quite a large Conservative majority there now. Sedgefield is harder to call but seems to have lost both strongly Labour areas like Wingate and more Conservative areas around Darlington, so I don't think there'll be very much change there either. Looking at North West Durham, Willington & Hunwick and Burnopfield & Dipton would have both been close in 2019 but I expect Labour might just have won them. The areas coming in will have been better for Labour - Witton Gilbert would have been close, but Deerness ward would have been Labour by quite a bit. I don't know whether that would be enough to make the seat Labour - but the majority will be down to a few hundred. Elsewhere, there might be some surprises on Tyneside. Newcastle upon Tyne North could be just about marginal - it's taking the most Conservative parts of two former seats and combining them. I also wouldn't assume Whitley Bay (which has a staunchly Conservative ward) will completely neutralise Cramlington. I think it'll be a close marginal that'll come down to the Seaton Valley wards - former pit villages but ones which are now seeing huge demographic changes and now have mainly Conservative councillors. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Jun 8, 2021 9:47:51 GMT
Better than I was expecting.
Positives:
Blyth and Ashington is very sensible.
No Tyne Bridge seat, instead putting part of Newcastle into Hexham.
The 2 seats in Gateshead are well drawn.
The Darlington/Stockton arrangement is the right one.
Negatives:
The split in Whitley Bay/Tynemouth is less than desirable, though its the best they can do if they do this arrangement.
Newcastle North takes in northern Kingston Park/Dinnington instead of the rest of Gosforth. easily rectifiable.
Sunderland is horrific. The area was never going to look pretty, but having 5 seats covering the council when it has less an entitlement of less than 3 is very poor. The butchering of western Sunderland is completely unjustifiable.
Bishop Auckland intruding on the city of Durham itself, and Sedgefield intruding on Bishop Auckland itself, are not ideal.
Redcar doesn't need to include a bit of Middlesbrough council. Better to add Saltburn to Redcar and Longlands/Beechwood to MS+EC.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 8, 2021 10:09:54 GMT
Given that they've been perfectly willing to split wards elsewhere, it might be worth proposing a ward split in Sunderland, adding part of Ryhope to the existing Houghton & Sunderland South. That then allows you to combine Washington and Chester-le-Street and draw the rest of County Durham fairly neatly. On the downside it means Sunderland Central isn't entirely unchanged, but you only need to move about 1000 electors to get Houghton & Sunderland South into quota, so you can definitely argue it's less disruptive.
|
|
