2023 Review - North East

[bjornhattan]

Dec 1, 2022 16:07:15 GMT nyx said:

Here’s an idea to reunify Thornaby. Ward changes compared to revised proposals. No map unfortunately as my laptop is broken.

Middlesbrough loses the wards of Mandale and Victoria, Stainsby Hill, Trimdon, Kader, Acklam, and Ayresome to Stockton South
Stockton South loses Grangefield, Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree, Fairfield, Hartburn, Western Parishes, Sadberge and Middleton St George, and Hurworth to Stockton North
Stockton North loses Northern Parishes, Billingham West, Billingham North, Billingham East, Billingham Central, Billingham South to Middlesbrough.

Middlesbrough constituency is renamed “Middlesbrough and Billingham”, Stockton North to “Stockton”, Stockton South to “Thornaby, Acklam and Yarm”. This final constituency would need to gain part of a split ward from Middlesbrough to get up to quota, but it’s easy to do that.

Almost certainly too radical for this stage of the review but it’s interesting that this would manage to reunite both Stockton and Thornaby into coherent constituencies.

The issue there is the lack of local connections between Billingham and Middlesbrough. The A19 connects them, but there's no residential areas between the two - it's mostly a lot of heavy industry and the River Tees. There are also major differences in demographics and issues - Billingham feels much more suburban and distant from central Middlesbrough than Thornaby or Stockton town centre, despite how it looks on the map. Including Northern Parishes is even more extreme - Wolviston fits with Billingham but villages like Wynyard and Thorpe Thewles don't and have only the most tenuous connections with Middlesbrough.

On the plus side, it does improve the situation in Stockton itself - the constituency you've created encompasses the entire town and the rural section does generally look to Stockton. Even Sadberge and Middleton St George fits reasonably well, though it is unfortunate that the numbers force you to extend as far as Hurworth. Looking at the Thornaby seat, it may be a little incoherent and the split in Middlesbrough might raise some eyebrows, but it isn't unprecedented (it's similar to Middlesbrough West/Thornaby between 1950 and 1983, just with Yarm included as well). But while there are clearly some benefits, I just don't think they outweigh the horror that is the Tees Banks seat.

As an aside, I was just playing around in Boundary Assistant and what struck me is how much easier things would be if the Tees Valley had ten or twenty thousand more electors. Adding the 20,000 (or so) electors from Whitby and its former rural district, for instance, would allow for a very neat configuration which would avoid splitting Thornaby and would split Middlesbrough in a much more natural way than either the current constituencies or the proposed ones*. I would hope the next review is more open to the possibility of crossing regional boundaries - or perhaps even treating the North East and Yorkshire as one large combined region.

* Specifically the entire borough remains united, with the exception of Nunthorpe (which is right on the periphery anyway and has good road links to Guisborough/Whitby) and the four East Middlesbrough wards (a cohesive unit with good links east to Eston/South Bank and on to Redcar, which would form the basis of a constituency).

[bjornhattan]

Dec 1, 2022 16:42:15 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Dec 1, 2022 15:43:01 GMT bjornhattan said:

You are correct about those parts of Ormesby ward being part of Nunthorpe - the railway line is the borough boundary but because of the two local railway it serves as more of a unifying focal point than a hard border.

The bad news is that the OS dataset still has the old polling district boundaries, but I have found a document which may be of some use - it lists the polling stations for the Tees Valley mayoral election including the polling districts to which they correspond. Based on this, it would appear that OBYC (1,993 electors) is the figure for the parts of Nunthorpe in Redcar and Cleveland and OBYA and OBYB (2,940 electors) is the figure for the rest of Ormesby.

Yes, I found that one. Cross-referencing that and and the polling district map, here are my best guesses for the polling districts in the latter but not the former:

Kader - KE only appears to have about 150 properties in it, pretty much all houses. I suspect it's a split of KD, but it's unlikely to be helpful for our purposes - and as it's not in the BCE's spreadsheet, I don't know if they'd accept it as a valid polling district.

Park End & Beckfield - OAM is the same in both - the M appears to designate areas currently in Middlesbrough S & E Cleveland. I think OD is OC in the Tees Valley PDF and presumably also the BCE spreadsheet. OB and OC on the map are presumably a split of the OB polling district in the PDF?

Brambles & Thorntree - a glance at Googlemaps suggests that IA only has one area that's residential rather than industrial, in its south-west corner. Presumably IB on the map is IA in the spreadsheet and the PDF and so on.

For the Ormesby one, I suspect the polling district boundaries are going to be unhelpful - looking at the old polling districts, if OBYC is the southern one then it probably conforms to the old HB and HC and hence stretches up to somewhere in the region of Spring Garden Lane, which really is getting into Ormesby proper. OBYB is then probably the replacement for HE (so the rest of Ormesby south of the A174) which would leave OBYA as the bits to the north.

I'm also wondering about a split of Normanby ward rather than Ormesby. Would it be fair to say that the real boundary between the two is the Spencer Beck and that the bits of Normanby ward to the west probably don't actually think of themselves as Normanby?

That area to the west of the beck is the Overfields estate and definitely has closer ties to Ormesby than Normanby - for example it has TS7 rather than TS6 postcodes. It is in Normanby ward purely to make up the numbers.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Here's an option:



Stockton North and Darlington are unchanged from the revised proposals.

Stockton West (which should probably go back to being South) loses Village and gains Hemlington and Stainton & Thornton. That means it contains part of three local authorities, but the boundary in Middlesbrough is fairly strong.

Middlesbrough & Thornaby East loses Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree and North Ormesby, but gains Coulby Newham and Village. It can also lose East from the name.

Redcar loses Ormesby and the Overfields Estate, but gains Brotton. That's not ideal for Loftus, but I think it's functional and having Ormesby in the same seat as Nunthorpe and Park End makes the map look a lot more sensible.

Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland loses Coulby Newham, Hemlington and Stainton & Thornton, but gains Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree, North Ormesby, Ormesby and the Overfields Estat. I'd probably call it Middlesbrough East & Guisborough on those lines.

Admittedly Coulby Newham looks very ugly on this map, but I do like the way this unifies Middlesbrough east of the railway. If you're not keen on that, you could alternatively swap Coulby Newham and Longlands & Beechwood for Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree and North Ormesby.

Does this seem like it might have potential?

[bjornhattan]

Dec 1, 2022 17:26:51 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Here's an option:



Stockton North and Darlington are unchanged from the revised proposals.

Stockton West (which should probably go back to being South) loses Village and gains Hemlington and Stainton & Thornton. That means it contains part of three local authorities, but the boundary in Middlesbrough is fairly strong.

Middlesbrough & Thornaby East loses Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree and North Ormesby, but gains Coulby Newham and Village. It can also lose East from the name.

Redcar loses Ormesby and the Overfields Estate, but gains Brotton. That's not ideal for Loftus, but I think it's functional and having Ormesby in the same seat as Nunthorpe and Park End makes the map look a lot more sensible.

Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland loses Coulby Newham, Hemlington and Stainton & Thornton, but gains Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree, North Ormesby, Ormesby and the Overfields Estat. I'd probably call it Middlesbrough East & Guisborough on those lines.

Admittedly Coulby Newham looks very ugly on this map, but I do like the way this unifies Middlesbrough east of the railway. If you're not keen on that, you could alternatively swap Coulby Newham and Longlands & Beechwood for Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree and North Ormesby.

Does this seem like it might have potential?

I think it might - but the question is whether the benefits from uniting Thornaby in one seat outweigh the distruption elsewhere. For example, there is quite a strong "East Cleveland" identity in the five eastern wards of Redcar and Cleveland - I think putting Brotton with Redcar is the least bad way to split this community up (since there are relatively good links between Saltburn and Brotton) but it's still not ideal.

Both of the two options for a boundary in Middlesbrough are awkward too. When I first saw your map I was horrified, but I am warming to your Coulby Newham solution because that ward does have fairly clear western and eastern boundaries, and the alternative is almost as ugly (Longlands and Beechwood contains the hospital and is generally much more integral to urban Middlesbrough than the wards east of the railway). Either way you're going to end up with a split in urban Middlesbrough, and while we do have one already, you'll end up with an even less coherent one than we have now almost regardless of what you do.

It comes down to what kinds of communities you think should be kept together. Either you have to split a small town, or you have to split a group of very interconnected villages and also suburban areas of a large town. Personally I think the former is slightly less bad and I'd probably prefer the revised proposals over these, but either way the numbers make life very difficult and coming up with any reasonable plan is an achievement.

[islington]

Dec 1, 2022 18:02:31 GMT bjornhattan said:

Dec 1, 2022 17:26:51 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Here's an option:



Stockton North and Darlington are unchanged from the revised proposals.

Stockton West (which should probably go back to being South) loses Village and gains Hemlington and Stainton & Thornton. That means it contains part of three local authorities, but the boundary in Middlesbrough is fairly strong.

Middlesbrough & Thornaby East loses Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree and North Ormesby, but gains Coulby Newham and Village. It can also lose East from the name.

Redcar loses Ormesby and the Overfields Estate, but gains Brotton. That's not ideal for Loftus, but I think it's functional and having Ormesby in the same seat as Nunthorpe and Park End makes the map look a lot more sensible.

Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland loses Coulby Newham, Hemlington and Stainton & Thornton, but gains Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree, North Ormesby, Ormesby and the Overfields Estat. I'd probably call it Middlesbrough East & Guisborough on those lines.

Admittedly Coulby Newham looks very ugly on this map, but I do like the way this unifies Middlesbrough east of the railway. If you're not keen on that, you could alternatively swap Coulby Newham and Longlands & Beechwood for Berwick Hills & Pallister, Brambles & Thorntree and North Ormesby.

Does this seem like it might have potential?

I think it might - but the question is whether the benefits from uniting Thornaby in one seat outweigh the distruption elsewhere. For example, there is quite a strong "East Cleveland" identity in the five eastern wards of Redcar and Cleveland - I think putting Brotton with Redcar is the least bad way to split this community up (since there are relatively good links between Saltburn and Brotton) but it's still not ideal.

Both of the two options for a boundary in Middlesbrough are awkward too. When I first saw your map I was horrified, but I am warming to your Coulby Newham solution because that ward does have fairly clear western and eastern boundaries, and the alternative is almost as ugly (Longlands and Beechwood contains the hospital and is generally much more integral to urban Middlesbrough than the wards east of the railway). Either way you're going to end up with a split in urban Middlesbrough, and while we do have one already, you'll end up with an even less coherent one than we have now almost regardless of what you do.

It comes down to what kinds of communities you think should be kept together. Either you have to split a small town, or you have to split a group of very interconnected villages and also suburban areas of a large town. Personally I think the former is slightly less bad and I'd probably prefer the revised proposals over these, but either way the numbers make life very difficult and coming up with any reasonable plan is an achievement.

Definitely not my part of the world but let me sound off anyway. How about this?

Compared with the plan by EAL above, you can keep eastern Cleveland together by adding Saltburn, Brotton and the two Marske wards to the red seat; which then loses Park End ward and the three wards north of it, and also does not contain any part of Normanby ward. This is then 69814 and legal, although I don't know what you'd call it. (Would 'Cleveland' be out of the question?)

This then leaves a Redcar seat with 71231. It contains four Middlesbrough wards, but I don't know the area well enough to know whether this element needs to be reflected in the name.

Middlesbrough & Thornaby can then stay as EAL has it, although if you want Coulby Newham to look slightly less out on a limb you could exchange Hemlington for Trimdon, which would make it 70028.

If you want to solve the three-LA problem you can retain something more like the existing north-south split of Stockton, but with Newtown and Town Centre switching to the south seat (71055) and Bishopsgarth going to the north (70799). 

[East Anglian Lefty]

Dec 1, 2022 18:58:09 GMT islington said:

Dec 1, 2022 18:02:31 GMT bjornhattan said:

I think it might - but the question is whether the benefits from uniting Thornaby in one seat outweigh the distruption elsewhere. For example, there is quite a strong "East Cleveland" identity in the five eastern wards of Redcar and Cleveland - I think putting Brotton with Redcar is the least bad way to split this community up (since there are relatively good links between Saltburn and Brotton) but it's still not ideal.

Both of the two options for a boundary in Middlesbrough are awkward too. When I first saw your map I was horrified, but I am warming to your Coulby Newham solution because that ward does have fairly clear western and eastern boundaries, and the alternative is almost as ugly (Longlands and Beechwood contains the hospital and is generally much more integral to urban Middlesbrough than the wards east of the railway). Either way you're going to end up with a split in urban Middlesbrough, and while we do have one already, you'll end up with an even less coherent one than we have now almost regardless of what you do.

It comes down to what kinds of communities you think should be kept together. Either you have to split a small town, or you have to split a group of very interconnected villages and also suburban areas of a large town. Personally I think the former is slightly less bad and I'd probably prefer the revised proposals over these, but either way the numbers make life very difficult and coming up with any reasonable plan is an achievement.

Definitely not my part of the world but let me sound off anyway. How about this?

Compared with the plan by EAL above, you can keep eastern Cleveland together by adding Saltburn, Brotton and the two Marske wards to the red seat; which then loses Park End ward and the three wards north of it, and also does not contain any part of Normanby ward. This is then 69814 and legal, although I don't know what you'd call it. (Would 'Cleveland' be out of the question?)

This then leaves a Redcar seat with 71231. It contains four Middlesbrough wards, but I don't know the area well enough to know whether this element needs to be reflected in the name.

Middlesbrough & Thornaby can then stay as EAL has it, although if you want Coulby Newham to look slightly less out on a limb you could exchange Hemlington for Trimdon, which would make it 70028.

If you want to solve the three-LA problem you can retain something more like the existing north-south split of Stockton, but with Newtown and Town Centre switching to the south seat (71055) and Bishopsgarth going to the north (70799). 

The difficulty with this is that it's essentially the same Cleveland seat as was proposed in the Initial Proposals, and which the BCE moved away from for the Revised proposals after receiving local opposition from Redcar.

[batman]

it would be great if someone could describe, in their opinion, the partisan implications of the revised proposals in the NE.

[minionofmidas]

Don't all yr proposals split Boro in three? I don't think that's going to fly.

[ClevelandYorks]

Dec 1, 2022 21:31:56 GMT batman said:

it would be great if someone could describe, in their opinion, the partisan implications of the revised proposals in the NE.

The Tories lose out.  The result of the 2019 general election was 19 LAB to 10 CON.  Under the revised proposals, this likely would have been 19 LAB and 8 CON.

Two CON seats are essentially abolished: North West Durham and Blyth Valley.   

The majority of NW Durham goes into Blaydon & Consett, which Labour would have won by a few thousand in 2019.  Blyth Valley will be split between Blyth & Ashington and Cramlington & Killingworth, both of which have slim notional Labour majorities.  Labour will hope to win all three with relative ease at the next general election.

In terms of Tory marginals... Sedgefield, Hexham and MSEC get more marginal, while Darlington and Redcar both get slightly less so.  Hard to say whether or not Bishop Auckland is made more marginal – the loss of Spennymoor & Tudhoe is offset by the addition of Weardale, Crook & Tow Law.  I expect the effect either way would be negligible.  

Stockton South ought to become a safe Tory seat, losing 3 Labour wards in Parkfield and Thornaby while gaining 3 extremely safe Tory wards in Hurworth, Sadberge and Rural West Stockton – but who knows how safe it would be on current polling!  

[batman]

thank you, that's exactly what I was hoping for. I had heard that NW Durham was to be abolished, but hadn't got my head around most of the other changes, and probably wouldn't have guessed that Cramlington & Killingworth was notionally Labour, not least because I don't think I've previously heard of Killingworth.

[ClevelandYorks]

Dec 1, 2022 22:48:22 GMT batman said:

thank you, that's exactly what I was hoping for. I had heard that NW Durham was to be abolished, but hadn't got my head around most of the other changes, and probably wouldn't have guessed that Cramlington & Killingworth was notionally Labour, not least because I don't think I've previously heard of Killingworth.

I could well be wrong about C & K, but Killingworth and Shiremoor are very strong Labour areas and I would guess they'd overcome the Tory lead in Cramlington and Seaton Valley. 

[jamie]

Dec 1, 2022 21:31:56 GMT batman said:

it would be great if someone could describe, in their opinion, the partisan implications of the revised proposals in the NE.

Berwick and Morpeth - Morpeth is relatively weak for the Conservatives so Berwick gets a bit more winnable for (probably Labour) in a landslide Conservative defeat. 
Hexham - Little partisan change so still the sort of seat Labour may need to win for a majority. 
Blyth and Ashington - Effectively the successor to the Labour held marginal of Wansbeck, but swapping clearly Conservative voting Morpeth for Blyth which will have still voted Labour in 2019. 
Cramlington and Killingworth - A new seat mostly composed of parts of Blyth Valley and North Tyneside constituencies. Electoral Calculus has it as notionally Labour. The North Tyneside bit is Labour while Cramlington is Conservative, but without looking at it in detail I’m not sure which side outvotes the other (not that it’s likely to matter at the next general election). 
Tynemouth - Little partisan change so remains pretty much a Labour safe seat. 
Newcastles etc - A lot of change but all 3 are safe Labour seats. 
Blaydon and Consett - Takes in half of Blaydon and North West Durham constituencies, politically closer to the former and will notionally be comfortably Labour even in 2019. 
Gateshead and Whickham - The latter makes it quite a bit more marginal, not that it matters in such a safe Labour seat. 
Jarrow/South Shields - Remains very safe Labour seats. 
Sunderlands etc - Not too much change so all hover around 7-11% Labour majorities. 
City of Durham/Easington/North Durham - No significant changes, still basically safe Labour. 
Bishop Auckland - Swaps Spennymoor for Weardale. Electoral Calculus thinks it knocks the Conservative majority from 18% to about 15%, I’m not so sure. 
Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor - The successor to Sedgefield. It swaps around quite a few mining villages including gaining Spennymoor, but most importantly it loses all 3 ‘Darlington rural’ wards which will knock off most of the Conservatives 12% majority. 
Darlington - The Conservatives majority goes from 8% to about 10%. 
Hartlepool - No change. 
Stockton North - Swaps 2 wards with the other Stockton seat which sees the Labour majority go from low single digits to high single digits. 
Stockton West - The successor to Stockton South but quite radically altered. Loses most of Thornaby, swaps 2 wards with Stockton North, and gains 2 ‘Darlington Rural’ wards. The end result is the Conservative majority going from 10% to north of 20%. 
Middlesbroughs/Redcar - No real partisan change to these 3 constituencies, Redcar is probably a little bit more Conservative. 


Essentially, the North East goes from 29 to 27 seats. Labour keeps 19 seats, with 1 very marginal seat getting quite a bit more comfortable. The Conservatives go from 10 seats to only 8, seeing one of their 2019 gains get quite a bit more marginal but another get a lot safer. It’s effectively 2 Conservative marginals which are eliminated. That said, on the high single digits lead Labour need for a majority, they go from about 25-28 to 22-26. Basically they’ve been shored up in the newly marginal seats but it might be a better map for the Conservatives when it matters/under a more traditional voting pattern. 

[lancastrian]

Unrealistic proposal for fixing Thornaby and allowing a neater solution to Middlesbrough/Cleveland:

From the revised proposals:

Village to the Middlesbrough/Thornaby seat
Grangefield to Stockton North
Northern Parishes and Sedgefield to Stockton West (or your pick of Stockton arrangements with Sedgefield)
Trimdon and Thornley unsplit in Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor
Easington to take in the conveniently named Easington Lane area of Hetton ward in Sunderland

Of course the BCE probably wouldn't go for that last one at any stage of the review. A couple of North Yorkshire wards would be very helpful.

[ClevelandYorks]

Dec 1, 2022 23:32:10 GMT lancastrian said:

Unrealistic proposal for fixing Thornaby and allowing a neater solution to Middlesbrough/Cleveland:

From the revised proposals:

Village to the Middlesbrough/Thornaby seat
Grangefield to Stockton North
Northern Parishes and Sedgefield to Stockton West (or your pick of Stockton arrangements with Sedgefield)
Trimdon and Thornley unsplit in Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor
Easington to take in the conveniently named Easington Lane area of Hetton ward in Sunderland

Of course the BCE probably wouldn't go for that last one at any stage of the review. A couple of North Yorkshire wards would be very helpful.

Really not worth it.  Splitting Thornaby is the best option within the constraints.  

[bjornhattan]

Dec 1, 2022 21:31:56 GMT batman said:

it would be great if someone could describe, in their opinion, the partisan implications of the revised proposals in the NE.

Considering each sub-region in turn:

Northumberland

• Berwick and Morpeth possibly becomes slightly more marginal - Morpeth and Pegswood both probably voted Conservative in 2019 but by a narrower margin than the current Berwick seat. It would still be safely Conservative but with slightly reduced margins. The Lib Dems historically did quite well in Morpeth, but their local support has crumbled in recent years, so this change probably makes a national comeback here even less likely.
  
• Hexham definitely becomes more marginal with the addition of the generally Labour voting Callerton and Throckley ward from Newcastle (Longhorsley is very Conservative but is much smaller). The Conservatives would likely hold it but it comes into play in a landslide election; Blair would have won it in 1997 on these boundaries.
  
• Blyth and Ashington is fairly close to the best Labour seat you could have entirely within Northumberland, but would have still been fairly marginal in 2019. Very likely to be held assuming Labour perform better in the next general election.
• Cramlington and Killingworth is fairly similar to the current Blyth Valley, but substitutes the relatively strongly Labour town of Blyth for a different area of Labour strength - northern North Tyneside along with the Dinnington area from Newcastle. This area is a mixed bag: quite a few Labour voting colliery villages and some grim estates in Killingworth, but equally more affluent newly built housing in Holystone and Northumberland Park - and there could be more of that once the new railway station opens at the latter. My model has it narrowly Conservative; Electoral Calculus has it as narrowly Labour. Probably too close to call in 2019 but would lean Labour in the current climate.
• Tynemouth loses Valley ward (a mix of working class Shiremoor/Backworth and more middle class Northumberland Park) and gains the eastern half of Riverside ward (most of Percy Main, North Shields town centre, and southern parts of the infamous Meadow Well). This will have fairly minimal political impact - perhaps nudging the seat towards Labour but not by much.
• Newcastle upon Tyne North is theoretically marginal - it combines the more Conservative half of the current Newcastle North with areas like West Gosforth (from Newcastle Central) and Forest Hall (from North Tyneside). But while the Tories would have likely won it historically, demographic changes in places like Jesmond probably put it out of reach unless there is a shock Conservative revival in urban, middle class seats. Similarly, this might have come close to voting Lib Dem in 2005 or 2010 but they are completely out of contention now.
  
• The other two Newcastle seats (Central & West and East & Wallsend) will both be very safe indeed - very similar to the current Central and East constituencies.

Durham

• South Shields gains the Cleadon and East Boldon ward. Despite this being the most middle class ward in South Tyneside (by a country mile) and traditionally being a Conservative bastion, it isn't big enough to make the seat marginal and it will remain safely Labour.
  
• Jarrow loses the aforementioned ward and gains some of the most Labour voting parts of Gateshead - again, this should be very safe Labour.
  
• Gateshead and Whickham, on the other hand, would have just about been marginal in 2019. The loss of very strongly Labour wards like Felling and the addition of the three Whickham wards (which are Lib Dem locally but almost certainly marginal or Conservative leaning nationally) probably reduces the percentage Labour majority to the low teens. Almost certainly a Labour hold in current circumstances but perhaps not as safe as you'd think.
• Blaydon loses the three Whickham wards and also Lamesley and Birtley - the former change helps Labour but the latter change hurts them. To bring the seat up to size a swathe of County Durham wards are added along the Derwent Valley and down to Consett. Generally this is Labour country but in 2019 it would have been very marginal indeed. Overall Blaydon and Consett should vote Labour but would have been fairly close in 2019.
• Washington gains Birtley and Lamesley from Blaydon, but loses the very working class St Anne's ward in Sunderland proper (and also loses the mention of Sunderland from its name). This change will have minimal partisan impact. Houghton and Sunderland South gains the aforementioned St Anne's ward and becomes slightly safer for Labour; Sunderland Central is obviously unchanged.
  
• North Durham gains Lanchester ward from NW Durham. This is a relatively affluent ward which tends to vote Conservative, meaning that North Durham would have been slightly more marginal in 2019 - but still just about comfortably Labour.
• City of Durham exchanges one set of ex pit villages (Coxhoe, Bowburn) to the south for a different set (Esh Winning, Willington) to the west. Minimal partisan effect.
• Very little change in Easington - the changes add villages like Wingate, Thornley, and Wheatley Hill which are still fairly strongly Labour voting and so again there will be almost no partisan effect.
• Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor sees quite a number of changes from the current Sedgefield seat, on which it is loosely based. It loses some pit villages to Easington, which should help the Conservatives, but it gains Coxhoe from City of Durham which is just as harmful. Gaining Spennymoor probably has minimal effect - it will have been more Labour voting than the Bishop Auckland seat as a whole, but probably still backed the Conservatives, just not by very much. But what will really make a big difference is the loss of Sadberge, Hurworth, Heighington, and many other deeply rural (and very Conservative) villages around the fringes of Darlington. The Conservatives would probably have still won this seat in 2019, but by a much narrower margin, and it will be a challenging seat for them to hold.
• Bishop Auckland loses Spennymoor and gains Weardale and Crook. While this represents a significant shift in the constituency and makes it quite a lot larger and more rural, it actually has relatively little partisan effect - Labour might benefit slightly given their strength in Tow Law, but it would only be a slight change.

Tees Valley

• Hartlepool is unchanged.
  
• Stockton North was very marginal at the last general election - these changes will shore up the Labour majority by removing the very rural Western Parishes ward and bringing in an ethnically diverse and strongly Labour ward (Parkfield and Oxbridge).
• Darlington is virtually unchanged, save for the addition of the rural Heighington and Coniscliffe ward to the west of the town. This should help the Conservatives but it isn't enough to make the seat safe - perhaps increasing the majority by around 1,000.
• The new Stockton West seat is virtually Matt Vickers' dream seat - compared with the current Stockton South it loses Parkfield and Oxbridge which as mentioned favours Labour and also loses most of Thornaby which also probably backs Labour (but is thoroughly independent locally). It gains a number of rural wards which are currently in Stockton North or Sedgefield - so while the Conservative vote diminishes in those seats it strengthens considerably here. In 2019, there would have been a huge Tory majority here and even if there is a large swing nationally to Labour, this would be quite a tough seat for them to gain.
• Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is likely to retain Middlesbrough's status as a Labour bastion - adding two working class wards from Thornaby and small tweaks in the east of the town are unlikely to change this.
• Redcar gains the Saltburn ward to bring it up to quota - historically this change would have been good news for the Conservatives, but Saltburn-by-the-Sea is increasingly gentrifying and in a way that might favour Labour in the long run. Probably quite minimal partisan effects either way.
• Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland gains some more territory in the east of Middlesbrough but loses Saltburn. Minimal partisan change here.

Summary

At the 2019 general election, I expect seventeen seats voted Labour, nine voted Conservative, and one (Killingworth & Cramlington) was too close to call. So either both parties lose one seat or the Conservatives lose two and Labour remain level.

In current circumstances, there are three seats which I would expect the Conservatives to hold (Berwick & Morpeth, Stockton West, Middlesbrough S & East Cleveland) and two which would be difficult to call (Hexham and Bishop Auckland). Compared with now, Stockton South/West goes from being quite a likely Labour gain to a likely Conservative hold, while Hexham becomes a little more marginal.

Overall, these changes are probably pretty neutral in terms of their partisan impact. Labour will like the fact that the Conservatives wouldn't have won quite as many seats in a good year for them like 2019; Conservatives will like the fact they have made Stockton South quite a lot safer though the price for this is a more marginal Sedgefield. The Lib Dems might be in a position to develop Newcastle North as a target over the next couple of elections, to make up for the fact retaking Berwick is now even more difficult. Either way, I'll be fascinated to see how these new seats develop and how they behave in the coming years, assuming they actually go through this time...

Edit: That's why you don't spend an hour writing an answer to a simple question - you get gazumped! But I broadly agree with most of what jamie and ClevelandYorks say - I just think Cramlington and Killingworth might have been narrowly Conservative in 2019 (though either way it should go Labour next time).

[wysall]

Dec 1, 2022 23:53:07 GMT bjornhattan said:

• Cramlington and Killingworth is fairly similar to the current Blyth Valley, but substitutes the relatively strongly Labour town of Blyth for a different area of Labour strength - northern North Tyneside along with the Dinnington area from Newcastle. This area is a mixed bag: quite a few Labour voting colliery villages and some grim estates in Killingworth, but equally more affluent newly built housing in Holystone and Northumberland Park - and there could be more of that once the new railway station opens at the latter. My model has it narrowly Conservative; Electoral Calculus has it as narrowly Labour. Probably too close to call in 2019 but would lean Labour in the current climate.

Affluent yes, but generally young enough to be quite good for Labour.

[jamie]

ClevelandYorks gave a clear summary and bjornhattan gave great detail, I think it was in fact I who was gazumped! Some very messy and frankly pedantic thoughts:
Hexham - The rural villages have about 4300 electors while Callerton and Throckley have about 7000, the former will have been an utter Conservative banker while the latter will have been a Labour lead in the single digits, possibly on the lower end. On that basis I’m not sure it makes much of a difference.
Blyth and Ashington - I’d definitely call this ‘fairly marginal’ rather than ‘slim majority’ given you’re essentially taking an ultra marginal Labour constituency minus the by far most Conservative bit and added the most Labour bit of an ultra marginal Conservative constituency. Obviously much reduced from past margins, but I suspect the notional figure is closer to a double digit Labour lead than notionally Conservative.
Forest Hall - I wouldn’t really use Forest Hall as an example of Conservative/affluent suburbia. Partly because half its in Cramlington and Killingworth, but also because it’s actually the most Labour bit of the ward with the Benton end being the relatively Conservative bit (my cousin used to live on the same, very bourgeoisie, street as a former Conservative councillor).
Blaydon - I think the Birtley wards are fairly average for the constituency while agreeing on the Whickham/Consett end. Consequently, I’d estimate the Labour majority at probably close to 10%.
Spennymoor - With the provisio that Spennymoor is impossible for outsiders to truly understand, I expect that Spennymoor will have voted Conservative by low double digits. The Conservative vote had to come from somewhere and Spennymoor comes across as the likely epicentre of culturally conservative Labour voters who are willing to abandon the party. I know you bjornhattan campaigned in the constituency so you may know better than me though.
Thornaby - I would say Thornaby definitely voted Labour, it’s very demographically similar to the most industrial working class parts of Stockton North.
Saltburn - Interesting comment bjornhattan , I would have never thought that but you might be right (it was certainly one of the relatively best Labour results in the disastrous 2019 locals).

As I said, I’m being very pedantic and essentially arguing over 1 or 2 percent here or there and the meaning of words like ‘fairly’ and ‘marginal’, but still thought I’d give some more local knowledge (I’ve certainly learned reading you guys’ posts).

[jamie]

Dec 2, 2022 0:18:11 GMT wysall said:

Affluent yes, but generally young enough to be quite good for Labour.

Yeah, Valley ward is surprisingly safe for Labour given the growth of affluent commuters in estates like Northumberland Park. It’s on paper similarish to the Seaton Valley to the north or wards like Weetslade, but the age profiles have clearly led to divergent voting patterns among other things. 

[bjornhattan]

Dec 2, 2022 0:43:35 GMT jamie said:

ClevelandYorks gave a clear summary and bjornhattan gave great detail, I think it was in fact I who was gazumped! Some very messy and frankly pedantic thoughts:
Hexham - The rural villages have about 4300 electors while Callerton and Throckley have about 7000, the former will have been an utter Conservative banker while the latter will have been a Labour lead in the single digits, possibly on the lower end. On that basis I’m not sure it makes much of a difference.
Blyth and Ashington - I’d definitely call this ‘fairly marginal’ rather than ‘slim majority’ given you’re essentially taking an ultra marginal Labour constituency minus the by far most Conservative bit and added the most Labour bit of an ultra marginal Conservative constituency. Obviously much reduced from past margins, but I suspect the notional figure is closer to a double digit Labour lead than notionally Conservative.
Forest Hall - I wouldn’t really use Forest Hall as an example of Conservative/affluent suburbia. Partly because half its Cramlington and Killingworth, but also because it’s actually the most Labour bit of the ward with the Benton end being the relatively Conservative bit (my cousin used to live on the same, very bourgeoisie, street as a former Conservative councillor).
Blaydon - I think the Birtley wards are fairly average for the constituency while agreeing on the Whickham /Consett end. Consequently, I’d estimate the Labour majority at probably close to 10%.
Spennymoor - With the provisio that Spennymoor is impossible for outsiders to truly understand, I expect that Spennymoor will have voted Conservative by low double digits. The Conservative vote had to come from somewhere and Spennymoor comes across as the likely epicentre of culturally consservative Labour voters who are willing to abandon the party. I know you bjornhattan campaigned in the constituency so you may know better than me though.
Thornaby - I would say Thornaby definitely voted Labour, it’s very demographically similar to the most industrial working class parts of Stockton North.
Saltburn - Interesting comment bjornhattan, I would have never hought that but you might be right (it was certainly one of the relatively best Labour results in the disastrous 2019 locals).

As I said, I’m being very pedantic and essentially arguing over 1 or 2 percent here or there and the meaning of words like ‘fairly’ and ‘marginal’, but still thought I’d give some more local knowledge (I’ve certainly learned reading you guys’ posts).

To respond to a few of these points:

I perhaps overestimated Labour's vote in Callerton and Throckley - it is a more diverse ward than I give it credit for and the Conservatives were probably well ahead in places like Woolsington even though Throckley would have been pretty strong for Labour. My own estimates have an increased Conservative majority (albeit a slightly decreased percentage majority) so they would be in line with what you say.

My model has Blyth and Ashington as only having a majority of 5.3% which should have been a red flag - looking at the figures it seems to have overestimated the Conservative vote in parts of Ashington (specifically around Wansbeck Hospital and Blackthorn Way - new estates which may have been narrowly Tory but my model has them as far safer) and underestimated it in Morpeth. There are definitely parts of the seat which have Conservative strength but there's no way it was that close in 2019.

Regarding Forest Hall, I actually meant to say Benton ward but for some reason I switched the two in my mind. I only included it because it did vote Conservative fairly consistently in the 2000s, but overall that is probably the part of Tyne and Wear I know least well (probably on a par with the bits of South Shields not in the centre or around the seafront).

Your figures for Blaydon are pretty close to mine - always a good sign. I have Labour on 43.4% and the Conservatives on 34.7%, so about a 9% majority.

Spennymoor is a law unto itself - when I was campaigning there it did seem to have a huge swing (if I had to guess from experience, roughly 20%) but it is probably the kind of community where local factors and individual candidates really matter. Did Helen Goodman confuse them with Crook or something like that to make them particularly upset?

Completely agree about Thornaby; Saltburn is a difficult one to judge but it does feel distinctly liberal and progressive which is very distinct from its neighbours (particularly in the grid of streets immediately north of the station). I almost find it has echoes of Hebden Bridge - not to the same extent but a similar sort of gentrification process in a small town that's not too far from bigger cities but feels out of the way and so has its own distinctly quirky spirit. Hard to think of a Tyneside equivalent - possibly parts of Whitley Bay, at a push?

[YL]

Dec 1, 2022 17:00:14 GMT bjornhattan said:

As an aside, I was just playing around in Boundary Assistant and what struck me is how much easier things would be if the Tees Valley had ten or twenty thousand more electors. Adding the 20,000 (or so) electors from Whitby and its former rural district, for instance, would allow for a very neat configuration which would avoid splitting Thornaby and would split Middlesbrough in a much more natural way than either the current constituencies or the proposed ones*. I would hope the next review is more open to the possibility of crossing regional boundaries - or perhaps even treating the North East and Yorkshire as one large combined region.

The regional boundary there is awkward (though not I think quite as bad as the Lincolnshire one) but I'm not very keen on even bigger review areas. It was quite annoying when I realised in the second zombie review that the mess they'd made of Sheffield in the initial proposals had had knock on effects as far away as Great Ayton (one of the places which I suppose you might like to group with the Tees Valley, though I guess they do have pitchforks there) and the idea that the knock on effects might go into County Durham or even Northumberland is not something that I think would be helpful for the consultation process.