jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065 
|
Post by jamie on Jun 8, 2021 11:30:06 GMT
The problem with South Tyneside/Sunderland is that the current seats are a bit too small which leads to multiple awkward splits of communities, particularly if you attempt minimum change. My view is that you have to accept one very awkward seat in order to make the rest work. In this case, Washington and Hebburn is the sacrifice needed to be made, but even then its at least no worse than the BCE's Jarrow and Sunderland West proposal. This arrangement then allows you to contain the city of Sunderland itself in 2 rather than 4 seats, with southern Sunderland making up a seat itself while northern Sunderland is paired with the Boldons/Whitburn which are effectively Sunderland commuter villages anyways. It also allows you to keep the Houghton area together.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Jun 8, 2021 17:02:36 GMT
I think if the Commission are going to hop over the old Mets and not split wards, they need to do it consistently. If part of Sunderland is going into County Durham centered seats, then it should be one seat and not two. Likewise I think it's possible to keep Callerton and Throckley in with Newcastle so you only have one leap from North Tyneside into Cramlington etc.
Splitting wards makes for better community divisions. It's the case across the country; wee rural villages get relatively neat local representation, large urban areas are simply a numbers game. You would better reflect communities in Sunderland etc if you split wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 8, 2021 17:47:54 GMT
I think if the Commission are going to hop over the old Mets and not split wards, they need to do it consistently. If part of Sunderland is going into County Durham centered seats, then it should be one seat and not two. Likewise I think it's possible to keep Callerton and Throckley in with Newcastle so you only have one leap from North Tyneside into Cramlington etc. Splitting wards makes for better community divisions. It's the case across the country; wee rural villages get relatively neat local representation, large urban areas are simply a numbers game. You would better reflect communities in Sunderland etc if you split wards. It's possible to keep Callerton and Throckley in Newcastle, but the result will probably be a much more sprawling Hexham seat. The Commission plan already adds Longhorsley which doesn't make much sense in a Hexham ward - where would you add next? Rothbury - a village which looks entirely to Morpeth and Alnwick?
Of course for political reasons I'd prefer to keep Hexham entirely rural - adding Callerton and Throckley probably knocks a couple of percent off the Conservative majority!
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
|
Post by jamie on Jun 8, 2021 19:17:00 GMT
It's possible to keep Callerton and Throckley in Newcastle, but the result will probably be a much more sprawling Hexham seat. The Commission plan already adds Longhorsley which doesn't make much sense in a Hexham ward - where would you add next? Rothbury - a village which looks entirely to Morpeth and Alnwick?
Of course for political reasons I'd prefer to keep Hexham entirely rural - adding Callerton and Throckley probably knocks a couple of percent off the Conservative majority!
I support adding Callerton and Throckley as well as Castle to Hexham, but if it makes you happy I’d also take out Prudhoe and Stocksfield, but then I’d also add Rothbury instead of Longhorsley so maybe I’m trying to please no one 😅 |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
|
Post by jamie on Jun 8, 2021 19:26:10 GMT
On a more serious note, the inclusion of Longhorsley in Hexham constituency is a very poor choice. Beyond the ward essentially being ‘Morpeth Rural’, it actually contains the Southfields estate which is directly adjacent to Morpeth Stobhill. Longhorsley in Hexham is a lot less logical than Rothbury imo.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,425
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 8, 2021 22:36:28 GMT
When looking over the proposals yesterday I somehow missed Sunderland. I thought Camden or Chester had gotten the worst deal out of these proposals at a fist glance but it’s definitely Sunderland
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 9, 2021 10:41:42 GMT
Some initial thoughts.
The division into 4 subregions severely constrains flexibility. It means that Thornaby has to be split. It rules out Hexham and Cramlington, unless Cramlington were to be split. Etc. There are 2 orphan wards. Sunderland's treatment looks ridiculous. Some of the names need changing.
All the seats in the "recalcitrants" area south of the Tyne, less Gateshead, are small making alternatives difficult to construct. Nevertheless I am trying!
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
|
Post by jamie on Jun 9, 2021 10:54:04 GMT
Some initial thoughts. The division into 4 subregions severely constrains flexibility. It means that Thornaby has to be split. It rules out Hexham and Cramlington, unless Cramlington were to be split. Etc. There are 2 orphan wards. Sunderland's treatment looks ridiculous. Some of the names need changing. All the seats in the "recalcitrants" area south of the Tyne, less Gateshead, are small making alternatives difficult to construct. Nevertheless I am trying! The low average electorate per seat requires 2 things imo. The split in Thornaby is necessary to prevent the Tees Valley taking any Durham wards, while the inclusion of Prudhoe in Blaydon moves a few 1000 surplus electors to south Tyne/Durham. Neither are ideal, but it makes things easier and prevents you running out of wards with a constituency below quota. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jun 9, 2021 11:17:27 GMT
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. I think at the moment it might have a slightly larger notional conservative majority than the current Blyth Valley seat has. I compare it to Blyth Valley as it will almost certainly be where the current Blyth Valley MP will want to contest next time if these boundaries go through, since Blyth and Ashington will certainly be stronger for labour than the current Wansbeck seat due to the removal of Morpeth and the adding of the more labour-inclined wards of Blyth Valley, and the current MP for Wansbeck will certainly want to go for that seat. However that slightly larger notional majority majority (for Cramlington and Whitley Bay) might be deceptive, and despite being notionally stronger for the conservatives now, it won't necessarily be stronger in the longer term as the wealthier parts of Cramlington have probably trended conservative as far as they are likely to do so, and the Whitley Bay wards are trending away from them, particularly Monkseaton. It's definitely a seat labour will want to pick up. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 9, 2021 11:21:37 GMT
Some initial thoughts. The division into 4 subregions severely constrains flexibility. It means that Thornaby has to be split. It rules out Hexham and Cramlington, unless Cramlington were to be split. Etc. There are 2 orphan wards. Sunderland's treatment looks ridiculous. Some of the names need changing. All the seats in the "recalcitrants" area south of the Tyne, less Gateshead, are small making alternatives difficult to construct. Nevertheless I am trying! The low average electorate per seat requires 2 things imo. The split in Thornaby is necessary to prevent the Tees Valley taking any Durham wards, while the inclusion of Prudhoe in Blaydon moves a few 1000 surplus electors to south Tyne/Durham. Neither are ideal, but it makes things easier and prevents you running out of wards with a constituency below quota. I think trying to fit Prudhoe into Blaydon is pushing at a brick wall - if the initial proposals don't cross county lines, the revised proposals are unlikely to countenance it. On the other hand, given that they've been quite willing to split wards elsewhere and that the wards in Durham and Sunderland are large and not always that cohesive, ward splits are definitely an option worth considering to fix those tricky seats that would otherwise come in just slightly below the quota. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
|
Post by jamie on Jun 9, 2021 12:08:32 GMT
I think trying to fit Prudhoe into Blaydon is pushing at a brick wall - if the initial proposals don't cross county lines, the revised proposals are unlikely to countenance it. On the other hand, given that they've been quite willing to split wards elsewhere and that the wards in Durham and Sunderland are large and not always that cohesive, ward splits are definitely an option worth considering to fix those tricky seats that would otherwise come in just slightly below the quota. I include the 3 Prudhoe area wards in Blaydon as it allows me to use the 2 Jarrow constituency/Gateshead council wards to help fix the South Tyneside/Sunderland mess. You could similar use it to add the 2 Birtley wards to a County Durham seat. I accept the commission are rather rigid when it comes to sub-regions, but the justification for their choices (combined authorities) is rather weak and the likely deluge of complaints about the Sunderland area will hopefully cause them to properly rethink their plan. I will also submit another arrangement that respects the county border and is still better than than commissions proposals, and honestly I do expect it will be more palpable to the commission despite being inferior to my other one imo. On the basis of the latter plan, i don't think ward splits are necessary, rather you just need to rejig my plan posted earlier in the thread in the Tyne and Wear/Northumberland area with no knock on for County Durham. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
|
Post by jamie on Jun 9, 2021 12:14:00 GMT
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. I think at the moment it might have a slightly larger notional conservative majority than the current Blyth Valley seat has. I compare it to Blyth Valley as it will almost certainly be where the current Blyth Valley MP will want to contest next time if these boundaries go through, since Blyth and Ashington will certainly be stronger for labour than the current Wansbeck seat due to the removal of Morpeth and the adding of the more labour-inclined wards of Blyth Valley, and the current MP for Wansbeck will certainly want to go for that seat. However that slightly larger notional majority majority (for Cramlington and Whitley Bay) might be deceptive, and despite being notionally stronger for the conservatives now, it won't necessarily be stronger in the longer term as the wealthier parts of Cramlington have probably trended conservative as far as they are likely to do so, and the Whitley Bay wards are trending away from them, particularly Monkseaton. It's definitely a seat labour will want to pick up. I believe the current Blyth Valley MP lives in Blyth so may still decide to go for the Ashington and Blyth constituency despite its obvious Labour inclination. Cramlington and Whitley Bay is certainly the sort of constituency Labour needs to win to get into government (they would have comfortably won it in 2017). |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Jun 9, 2021 19:02:32 GMT
I haven't looked at the figures but I would imagine having Longhorsley in Hexham could be avoided if Castle ward in Newcastle was split, with the villages of Dinnington and possibly Hazlerigg put into Hexham and the urban part around Kingston Park and Great Park kept in a Newcastle seat. Dinnington is a fair way out of the city and is close to Ponteland, as well as fitting in well with those western villages in Callerton and Throckley ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 10, 2021 8:13:12 GMT
Given the sub-region constraints, I cannot find an alternative which avoids splitting Sunderland in five, without splitting Durham, Aycliffe, etc. So is it worth putting up alternatives which dispense with the sub-regions?
I think Rothbury is preferable in Hexham to Longhorsley. What does the king of Rothbury, Steve Bridgett, think?
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 10, 2021 8:13:28 GMT
Deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 10, 2021 9:36:58 GMT
Given the sub-region constraints, I cannot find an alternative which avoids splitting Sunderland in five, without splitting Durham, Aycliffe, etc. So is it worth putting up alternatives which dispense with the sub-regions? I think Rothbury is preferable in Hexham to Longhorsley. What does the king of Rothbury, Steve Bridgett, think? Check through this thread. There are a whole bunch of plans which treat South Tyneside, Sunderland and County Durham as a sub-region and don't split Durham or Aycliffe. All of them have flaws of their own, but there are solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 10, 2021 22:09:47 GMT
Given the sub-region constraints, I cannot find an alternative which avoids splitting Sunderland in five, without splitting Durham, Aycliffe, etc. So is it worth putting up alternatives which dispense with the sub-regions? I think Rothbury is preferable in Hexham to Longhorsley. What does the king of Rothbury, Steve Bridgett, think? Check through this thread. There are a whole bunch of plans which treat South Tyneside, Sunderland and County Durham as a sub-region and don't split Durham or Aycliffe. All of them have flaws of their own, but there are solutions. Yes, I've been too hasty. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Feb 7, 2022 21:59:42 GMT
Looks like most of the public feedback in Redcar is the same as what I put forth- that Redcar should be included in an eastern Cleveland constituency with the rest of the coast and not including any of the Middlesbrough/Eston area.
Unfortunately population constraints would require either the Hutton ward in Guisborough or the Dormanstown ward in Redcar to be included in a Middlesbrough-based constituency- otherwise the eastern Cleveland seat would be left with 76k people, which is within the limit but leaves everywhere else too far short.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 8, 2022 15:25:46 GMT
Looking through the party submissions here, the Tories are mostly happy with what the Commission came up with. The Greens make comments in a few areas, but no counter-proposals.
The Lib Dems are happy with the Tees Valley, Gateshead, South Tyneside and North of the Tyne. However, they propose new arrangements for County Durham and the fringes of Sunderland. These include a Houghton & Seaham seat (which doesn't include all of Houghton), a Bishop Auckland seat which covers Newton Aycliffe, a NW (really West) Durham seat that gives the City of Durham a close haircut, a North Durham seat made up of Stanley & Consett and a City of Durham & Chester-le-Street seat.
Labour have counter-proposals in two areas:
North of the Tyne, they think Hexham should gain Bedlington rather than outlying bits of Newcastle. Blyth & Ashington should then regain the Seaton Valley area and Cramlington should go with Longbenton rather than Whitley Bay. You then get a return of Newcastle East & Wallsend. This makes Hexham decidedly unlovely but it's probably an improvement for the remaining seats.
South of the Tyne, they choose not to treat Gateshead on its own, which allows a pattern a little closer to the present one. Jarrow extends further into Gateshead, which in turn gains Whickham. Blaydon goes with Consett and Washington grabs Birtley and Lamesley. Personally I'd have called it Washington & Birtley rather than Washington & Gateshead South if I wanted to sell this. This allows minimum change solutions to Houghton & Sunderland South and North Durham. However, fitting in the four remaining seats mean an awful carve-up of Spennymoor and a Sedgefield seat which extends right to the edges of Durham. I suspect if they'd been willing to propose a ward split they'd have been able to find a much better alternative.
They aren't happy with the situation in Stockton but they don't make definite counter-proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 8, 2022 15:40:30 GMT
Looking through the party submissions here, the Tories are mostly happy with what the Commission came up with. The Greens make comments in a few areas, but no counter-proposals. The Lib Dems are happy with the Tees Valley, Gateshead, South Tyneside and North of the Tyne. However, they propose new arrangements for County Durham and the fringes of Sunderland. These include a Houghton & Seaham seat (which doesn't include all of Houghton), a Bishop Auckland seat which covers Newton Aycliffe, a NW (really West) Durham seat that gives the City of Durham a close haircut, a North Durham seat made up of Stanley & Consett and a City of Durham & Chester-le-Street seat. Labour have counter-proposals in two areas: North of the Tyne, they think Hexham should gain Bedlington rather than outlying bits of Newcastle. Blyth & Ashington should then regain the Seaton Valley area and Cramlington should go with Longbenton rather than Whitley Bay. You then get a return of Newcastle East & Wallsend. This makes Hexham decidedly unlovely but it's probably an improvement for the remaining seats. South of the Tyne, they choose not to treat Gateshead on its own, which allows a pattern a little closer to the present one. Jarrow extends further into Gateshead, which in turn gains Whickham. Blaydon goes with Consett and Washington grabs Birtley and Lamesley. Personally I'd have called it Washington & Birtley rather than Washington & Gateshead South if I wanted to sell this. This allows minimum change solutions to Houghton & Sunderland South and North Durham. However, fitting in the four remaining seats mean an awful carve-up of Spennymoor and a Sedgefield seat which extends right to the edges of Durham. I suspect if they'd been willing to propose a ward split they'd have been able to find a much better alternative. They aren't happy with the situation in Stockton but they don't make definite counter-proposals. Ten minutes experimentation gives me this much better solution for the four southern-most seats in County Durham, relative to the Labour counter-proposal: Seaham & Peterlee (70043) - does not gain Sherburn, instead gains Wheatley Hill and Thornley from Trimdon & Thornley ward Sedgefield (71299) - does not gain Durham South, instead gains Spennymoor and retains only the Trimdon bits of Trimdon & Thornley City of Durham (72878) - does not gain Spennymoor, instead retains Durham South and Sherburn Bishop Auckland - as in the Labour proposal. |
|
