2023 Review - North East

[bjornhattan]

Dec 2, 2022 8:20:09 GMT YL said:

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.

A North East and Yorkshire review area would be entitled to around 81 seats, making it smaller than the South East and comparable in size to the North West or London. I don't think this would be excessively large - while there could be situations as you describe where arrangements in Sheffield affect those in County Durham I think this would be unlikely, and is no worse than the current situation where changes in Manchester or Liverpool can have knock on effects in Cumbria.

The current North East region is just too small if we're going to have 5% thresholds. Because the region is really entitled to 26.6 seats rather than 27, the average seat here has to be about 1,000 electors smaller than the national average, and so the lower limit is just 3.7% below the average electorate. That is an extremely tight requirement and is much of the reason why coming up with a reasonable plan here is so difficult. Being able to cross the regional boundary would make things much easier - I gave the example earlier of how adding Whitby to the Tees Valley could eliminate the split in Thornaby and create a neater map in Middlesbrough (as well as more minor changes like allowing Hurworth to become part of Darlington rather than being an awkward appendage to Stockton West). Crossing the boundary further west and incorporating Stokesley and Great Ayton instead would result in a slightly different configuration, but would again massively alleviate most of the issues in Teesside. Yes, there's always the risk of knock on effects or issues with public participation in much larger regions - but should these alternative solutions be completely discarded just because they cross an arbitrary line between fields?

[ricmk]

There's nothing stopping you proposing such a boundary even now - the rules don't require you to follow regional boundaries. Indeed it's based on Euro boundaries and I thought that Brexit allowed us to throw off such constraining European shackles. The only thing you aren't allowed to do in statute is cross the border between England and Scotland (or Wales.)

But they will require serious evidence that it's the best solution, and I doubt they would entertain something so radical at this stage. I did wonder about it for MK (we have a horrible Bletchley and Buckingham seat, but it's the only option within the SE region, and although it's no less pitchforky now, the fact it's been proposed for three reviews in a row means the objectors are at least used to the idea that this is coming) as there is a much better road and community connection to Towcester in South Northants. But I never thought they would buy it.

I don't know the NE well, but looking at the final proposals in 2018 I thought this was the worst region by far - looks from afar they have done a much stronger job this time.

[aargauer]

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

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).

The new Newcastle upon Tyne arrangement pleases me. A great north road seat of some description always made sense. Jesmond and Gosforth blend in with each other in a way that Jesmond and the east end simply don't. It combines all the parts of town I knew best growing up. Even from North Tyneside - I went to school in Forest Hall.

Sort of a new Sheffield Hallam kind of seat.

[Sibboleth]

'Cramlington & Killingworth' would presumably register as narrowly Labour in 2019 on most methods of calculating notionals, but might well have just about gone the other way had it existed as an open seat at the time. Similarly, while 'Newton Aycliffe & Spennymoor' would presumably register as narrow Conservative in 2019, had those boundaries existed at the time then it's not impossible it might have, just about, stayed Labour. An interesting example of the limitations of notional calculations, though it seems rather academic in both cases given everything that's changed since then.

[bjornhattan]

Dec 2, 2022 10:14:08 GMT aargauer said:

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

Snip

The new Newcastle upon Tyne arrangement pleases me. A great north road seat of some description always made sense. Jesmond and Gosforth blend in with each other in a way that Jesmond and the east end simply don't. It combines all the parts of town I knew best growing up. Even from North Tyneside - I went to school in Forest Hall.

Sort of a new Sheffield Hallam kind of seat.

The current Newcastle East always strikes me as a bizarre seat because of how polarised it is. The southern half of the seat contains some of the most deprived areas in Newcastle (if not the country) - there's a little gentrification in the far west and south of Byker but it's pretty limited. The northern half is a stark contrast, being mostly students and young professionals who live in leafy streets around Jesmond. There's very little in between; Chilly Road is arguably a mix of the two, but more the latter, while Ouseburn ward is geographically southern but is more like the north of the seat in terms of demographics.

[nyx]

Dec 2, 2022 9:58:42 GMT ricmk said:

There's nothing stopping you proposing such a boundary even now - the rules don't require you to follow regional boundaries. Indeed it's based on Euro boundaries and I thought that Brexit allowed us to throw off such constraining European shackles. The only thing you aren't allowed to do in statute is cross the border between England and Scotland (or Wales.)

But they will require serious evidence that it's the best solution, and I doubt they would entertain something so radical at this stage. I did wonder about it for MK (we have a horrible Bletchley and Buckingham seat, but it's the only option within the SE region, and although it's no less pitchforky now, the fact it's been proposed for three reviews in a row means the objectors are at least used to the idea that this is coming) as there is a much better road and community connection to Towcester in South Northants. But I never thought they would buy it.

I don't know the NE well, but looking at the final proposals in 2018 I thought this was the worst region by far - looks from afar they have done a much stronger job this time.

If it’s true that it is legally possible, honestly worth considering proposing:

Bedale and Tanfield wards back from Thirsk and Malton to Richmond and Northallerton (Bedale being removed was a thing there was many objections to)
Huby back to Thirsk and Malton from the Wetherby seat, and Claro from Harrogate and Knaresbrough to the Wetherby seat (equalizes numbers)
Great Ayton, Stokesley, Hutton Rudby to Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (pretty strong links in this cross boundary seat so I doubt it would be objectionable)
Park End and Beckfield, Ladgate, and Marton East north of the A174 from Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to Middlesbrough. Suggesting a ward split because the A174 is such a strong natural possible boundary between constituencies.

And now you can reunite Thornaby back into Stockton South, send Hurworth to Darlington where it fits much better, and there are now innumerate ways to split Stockton North and Stockton South as the numbers are very comfortable.

Just shuffling a few wards down the line like this is enough to majorly improve every seat.

[wysall]

I sometimes wonder what the exact voting figures for the residential population of Jesmond are. There is a more small-l liberal contingent but I think a lot more Conservative than you'd expect from the area's results and location; mostly elderly and very, very few families.

[aargauer]

Dec 2, 2022 11:02:05 GMT wysall said:

I sometimes wonder what the exact voting figures for the residential population of Jesmond are. There is a more small-l liberal contingent but I think a lot more Conservative than you'd expect from the area's results and location; mostly elderly and very, very few families.

It obviously depends on whether its local or general. I imagine North Jesmond marginally conservative in 2019, and generally very easily liberal in the locals. 

Most of South Jesmond I don't really consider to be Jesmond (the bits the wrong side of Jesmond Road). Sandyford / Vale more like (I'm amazed it goes all the way to Warwick Road - which is actually past Sandyford and into Shieldfield).

Whereas half of the Dene and South Gosforth ward is Jesmond - e.g. the area around Illford Road metro station, and Jesmond Dene tennis club. The Millstone pub is about the boundary between Jesmond and Gosforth - for me at least.

I grew up in the northern half of North Jesmond in the 90s and 00s - was a fair number of families back then, but basically normal people are priced out now. 

[bjornhattan]

Dec 2, 2022 10:50:49 GMT nyx said:

Dec 2, 2022 9:58:42 GMT ricmk said:

There's nothing stopping you proposing such a boundary even now - the rules don't require you to follow regional boundaries. Indeed it's based on Euro boundaries and I thought that Brexit allowed us to throw off such constraining European shackles. The only thing you aren't allowed to do in statute is cross the border between England and Scotland (or Wales.)

But they will require serious evidence that it's the best solution, and I doubt they would entertain something so radical at this stage. I did wonder about it for MK (we have a horrible Bletchley and Buckingham seat, but it's the only option within the SE region, and although it's no less pitchforky now, the fact it's been proposed for three reviews in a row means the objectors are at least used to the idea that this is coming) as there is a much better road and community connection to Towcester in South Northants. But I never thought they would buy it.

I don't know the NE well, but looking at the final proposals in 2018 I thought this was the worst region by far - looks from afar they have done a much stronger job this time.

If it’s true that it is legally possible, honestly worth considering proposing:

Bedale and Tanfield wards back from Thirsk and Malton to Richmond and Northallerton (Bedale being removed was a thing there was many objections to)
Huby back to Thirsk and Malton from the Wetherby seat, and Claro from Harrogate and Knaresbrough to the Wetherby seat (equalizes numbers)
Great Ayton, Stokesley, Hutton Rudby to Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (pretty strong links in this cross boundary seat so I doubt it would be objectionable)
Park End and Beckfield, Ladgate, and Marton East north of the A174 from Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to Middlesbrough. Suggesting a ward split because the A174 is such a strong natural possible boundary between constituencies.

And now you can reunite Thornaby back into Stockton South, send Hurworth to Darlington where it fits much better, and there are now innumerate ways to split Stockton North and Stockton South as the numbers are very comfortable.

Just shuffling a few wards down the line like this is enough to majorly improve every seat.

It's also a natural boundary between communities - nearly all of the people living in that area north of the A174 are also separated from the rest of their ward by Stewart Park, or are on the other side of Stokesley Road. Just keep in mind that most of Marton East's electorate is south of the your dividing line - the NAM polling district has 847 electors and there will be perhaps 100-200 in the parts of NBM district you move to Middlesbrough - it may be tight on the numbers.

I would perhaps rename Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to reflect the regional boundary crossing. In theory, Cleveland would be an ideal name (since the term Cleveland traditionally stretched south and west to include the area around the river Leven). However, it might be unpopular for historical reasons - the 1974 Cleveland "county" is still a sore point around here - so a more neutral name such as "Guisborough and Stokesley" might be better. Or even a return to the dreaded Langbaurgh!

Other than that, there's a lot to like about these changes - particularly the fact they allow Bedale to rejoin a Northallerton-based seat which is definitely where it belongs. Sadly the crossing of the regional boundary means that the commission are unlikely to consider it at this late stage, even though the changes in and of themselves aren't that radical and it does lead to signficant improvements in a number of areas. I suppose there's no harm in trying but it's unfortunate that it is unlikely to be considered.

[wysall]

Dec 2, 2022 11:40:02 GMT aargauer said:

Dec 2, 2022 11:02:05 GMT wysall said:

I sometimes wonder what the exact voting figures for the residential population of Jesmond are. There is a more small-l liberal contingent but I think a lot more Conservative than you'd expect from the area's results and location; mostly elderly and very, very few families.

It obviously depends on whether its local or general. I imagine North Jesmond marginally conservative in 2019, and generally very easily liberal in the locals. 

Most of South Jesmond I don't really consider to be Jesmond (the bits the wrong side of Jesmond Road). Sandyford / Vale more like (I'm amazed it goes all the way to Warwick Road - which is actually past Sandyford and into Shieldfield).

Whereas half of the Dene and South Gosforth ward is Jesmond - e.g. the area around Illford Road metro station, and Jesmond Dene tennis club. The Millstone pub is about the boundary between Jesmond and Gosforth - for me at least.

I grew up in the northern half of North Jesmond in the 90s and 00s - was a fair number of families back then, but basically normal people are priced out now. 

Brandling Village, 2004-8 June 2017. I'm not entirely convinced the residential vote was only marginally Conservative at the last GE. Too elderly and affluent for that, and the local results in Byker and Walker hardly point to mass realignment so you need the Conservative vote to come from somewhere. But the local Conservatives seem surprisingly student-focused - think I've posted before on the total farce that was their 2021 campaign, where their student candidate (now, thanks to the Murton Gap development, roundabouts, and running around after dog mess a councillor in North Tyneside) said he could win in South Jesmond because... er... the Conservatives are now the party of the working class. This year also two students. Not like Gosforth where Doc Anand put up a serious fight against the Lib Dems.

[aargauer]

Dec 2, 2022 12:45:41 GMT wysall said:

Dec 2, 2022 11:40:02 GMT aargauer said:

It obviously depends on whether its local or general. I imagine North Jesmond marginally conservative in 2019, and generally very easily liberal in the locals. 

Most of South Jesmond I don't really consider to be Jesmond (the bits the wrong side of Jesmond Road). Sandyford / Vale more like (I'm amazed it goes all the way to Warwick Road - which is actually past Sandyford and into Shieldfield).

Whereas half of the Dene and South Gosforth ward is Jesmond - e.g. the area around Illford Road metro station, and Jesmond Dene tennis club. The Millstone pub is about the boundary between Jesmond and Gosforth - for me at least.

I grew up in the northern half of North Jesmond in the 90s and 00s - was a fair number of families back then, but basically normal people are priced out now. 

Brandling Village, 2004-8 June 2017. I'm not entirely convinced the residential vote was only marginally Conservative at the last GE. Too elderly and affluent for that, and the local results in Byker and Walker hardly point to mass realignment so you need the Conservative vote to come from somewhere. But the local Conservatives seem surprisingly student-focused - think I've posted before on the total farce that was their 2021 campaign, where their student candidate (now, thanks to the Murton Gap development, roundabouts, and running around after dog mess a councillor in North Tyneside) said he could win in South Jesmond because... er... the Conservatives are now the party of the working class. This year also two students. Not like Gosforth where Doc Anand put up a serious fight against the Lib Dems.

That bit of South Jesmond is actually Jesmond (albeit with a slightly distinct character) and probably has a half decent number of Conservatives. It's a bit more "bohemian" and less Toryish than Towers / Mitchell Avenue / Lindisfarne Road type areas though.

[minionofmidas]

Dec 2, 2022 10:50:49 GMT nyx said:

Dec 2, 2022 9:58:42 GMT ricmk said:

There's nothing stopping you proposing such a boundary even now - the rules don't require you to follow regional boundaries. Indeed it's based on Euro boundaries and I thought that Brexit allowed us to throw off such constraining European shackles. The only thing you aren't allowed to do in statute is cross the border between England and Scotland (or Wales.)

But they will require serious evidence that it's the best solution, and I doubt they would entertain something so radical at this stage. I did wonder about it for MK (we have a horrible Bletchley and Buckingham seat, but it's the only option within the SE region, and although it's no less pitchforky now, the fact it's been proposed for three reviews in a row means the objectors are at least used to the idea that this is coming) as there is a much better road and community connection to Towcester in South Northants. But I never thought they would buy it.

I don't know the NE well, but looking at the final proposals in 2018 I thought this was the worst region by far - looks from afar they have done a much stronger job this time.

If it’s true that it's legally possible

it doesn't follow that it's worth wasting yr time on it, not even during the initial consultation. Think of it as an unwritten part of the law.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Dec 2, 2022 12:17:11 GMT bjornhattan said:

Dec 2, 2022 10:50:49 GMT nyx said:

If it’s true that it is legally possible, honestly worth considering proposing:

Bedale and Tanfield wards back from Thirsk and Malton to Richmond and Northallerton (Bedale being removed was a thing there was many objections to)
Huby back to Thirsk and Malton from the Wetherby seat, and Claro from Harrogate and Knaresbrough to the Wetherby seat (equalizes numbers)
Great Ayton, Stokesley, Hutton Rudby to Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (pretty strong links in this cross boundary seat so I doubt it would be objectionable)
Park End and Beckfield, Ladgate, and Marton East north of the A174 from Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to Middlesbrough. Suggesting a ward split because the A174 is such a strong natural possible boundary between constituencies.

And now you can reunite Thornaby back into Stockton South, send Hurworth to Darlington where it fits much better, and there are now innumerate ways to split Stockton North and Stockton South as the numbers are very comfortable.

Just shuffling a few wards down the line like this is enough to majorly improve every seat.

It's also a natural boundary between communities - nearly all of the people living in that area north of the A174 are also separated from the rest of their ward by Stewart Park, or are on the other side of Stokesley Road. Just keep in mind that most of Marton East's electorate is south of the your dividing line - the NAM polling district has 847 electors and there will be perhaps 100-200 in the parts of NBM district you move to Middlesbrough - it may be tight on the numbers.

I would perhaps rename Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to reflect the regional boundary crossing. In theory, Cleveland would be an ideal name (since the term Cleveland traditionally stretched south and west to include the area around the river Leven). However, it might be unpopular for historical reasons - the 1974 Cleveland "county" is still a sore point around here - so a more neutral name such as "Guisborough and Stokesley" might be better. Or even a return to the dreaded Langbaurgh!

Other than that, there's a lot to like about these changes - particularly the fact they allow Bedale to rejoin a Northallerton-based seat which is definitely where it belongs. Sadly the crossing of the regional boundary means that the commission are unlikely to consider it at this late stage, even though the changes in and of themselves aren't that radical and it does lead to signficant improvements in a number of areas. I suppose there's no harm in trying but it's unfortunate that it is unlikely to be considered.

I don't think there's any chance of the BCE accepting it, but if you were going to propose such a constituency then calling it Roseberry Topping might be a nice neutral choice.

[carlton43]

Dec 4, 2022 16:26:23 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Dec 2, 2022 12:17:11 GMT bjornhattan said:

It's also a natural boundary between communities - nearly all of the people living in that area north of the A174 are also separated from the rest of their ward by Stewart Park, or are on the other side of Stokesley Road. Just keep in mind that most of Marton East's electorate is south of the your dividing line - the NAM polling district has 847 electors and there will be perhaps 100-200 in the parts of NBM district you move to Middlesbrough - it may be tight on the numbers.

I would perhaps rename Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to reflect the regional boundary crossing. In theory, Cleveland would be an ideal name (since the term Cleveland traditionally stretched south and west to include the area around the river Leven). However, it might be unpopular for historical reasons - the 1974 Cleveland "county" is still a sore point around here - so a more neutral name such as "Guisborough and Stokesley" might be better. Or even a return to the dreaded Langbaurgh!

Other than that, there's a lot to like about these changes - particularly the fact they allow Bedale to rejoin a Northallerton-based seat which is definitely where it belongs. Sadly the crossing of the regional boundary means that the commission are unlikely to consider it at this late stage, even though the changes in and of themselves aren't that radical and it does lead to signficant improvements in a number of areas. I suppose there's no harm in trying but it's unfortunate that it is unlikely to be considered.

I don't think there's any chance of the BCE accepting it, but if you were going to propose such a constituency then calling it Roseberry Topping might be a nice neutral choice.

No.  It is a nice name and a glorious sight but not a good name for a constituency as few have heard of it aand they won't know where t is.  And Langbaurgh was a quite dreadful idea as no one at all knew where it was, what the name meant, how to spell it or how to pronounce it.  

I don't  like double names but Guisborough & Stokesley is probably best because neither name alone is justified in size or basic geography.  Most prople will easily be able to place that double name.

[nyx]

Dec 4, 2022 16:41:15 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 4, 2022 16:26:23 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I don't think there's any chance of the BCE accepting it, but if you were going to propose such a constituency then calling it Roseberry Topping might be a nice neutral choice.

No.  It is a nice name and a glorious sight but not a good name for a constituency as few have heard of it aand they won't know where t is.  And Langbaurgh was a quite dreadful idea as no one at all knew where it was, what the name meant, how to spell it or how to pronounce it.  

Last I heard from locals, the mountain is considered something of pride, I’ve heard a saying along the lines of “you’re not a true Yorkshireman til you’ve climbed Roseberry Topping”. Certainly wouldn’t call it obscure.

That being said “Guisborough and Stokesley” works fine.

[carlton43]

Dec 4, 2022 17:36:11 GMT nyx said:

Dec 4, 2022 16:41:15 GMT carlton43 said:

No.  It is a nice name and a glorious sight but not a good name for a constituency as few have heard of it aand they won't know where t is.  And Langbaurgh was a quite dreadful idea as no one at all knew where it was, what the name meant, how to spell it or how to pronounce it.  

Last I heard from locals, the mountain is considered something of pride, I’ve heard a saying along the lines of “you’re not a true Yorkshireman til you’ve climbed Roseberry Topping”. Certainly wouldn’t call it obscure.

That being said “Guisborough and Stokesley” works fine.

It really is not at all well known outside of the area and would be daft as a name.  And I have never heard that said about 'a true Yorkshireman'.
My family have lived in the North Riding for centuries.  I live in Yorkshire.  I have been past in many times in 60-years and I have climbed it more than once.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Dec 4, 2022 17:36:11 GMT nyx said:

Dec 4, 2022 16:41:15 GMT carlton43 said:

No.  It is a nice name and a glorious sight but not a good name for a constituency as few have heard of it aand they won't know where t is.  And Langbaurgh was a quite dreadful idea as no one at all knew where it was, what the name meant, how to spell it or how to pronounce it.  

Last I heard from locals, the mountain is considered something of pride, I’ve heard a saying along the lines of “you’re not a true Yorkshireman til you’ve climbed Roseberry Topping”. Certainly wouldn’t call it obscure.

That being said “Guisborough and Stokesley” works fine.

Relatively few people will have heard of many places in the constituency, because you're relatively unlikely to have seen them on roadsigns (if you're going north, you're only going to take the A19 if you're actually going to Teesside, everybody else will take the A1), there aren't any major railway stations and none of the towns are particularly likely to turn up in the news. On the other hand, if you do live in or know the area, you've heard of Roseberry Topping.

Not that it particularly matters, because I don't really care whether it meets anybody's criteria for being a "good" name - the purpose of a name like that is to make sure that neither end of the proposed constituency complains because of a belief that constituency names are somehow meaningful or important.

[bjornhattan]

Dec 5, 2022 10:07:06 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Dec 4, 2022 17:36:11 GMT nyx said:

Last I heard from locals, the mountain is considered something of pride, I’ve heard a saying along the lines of “you’re not a true Yorkshireman til you’ve climbed Roseberry Topping”. Certainly wouldn’t call it obscure.

That being said “Guisborough and Stokesley” works fine.

Relatively few people will have heard of many places in the constituency, because you're relatively unlikely to have seen them on roadsigns (if you're going north, you're only going to take the A19 if you're actually going to Teesside, everybody else will take the A1), there aren't any major railway stations and none of the towns are particularly likely to turn up in the news. On the other hand, if you do live in or know the area, you've heard of Roseberry Topping.

Not that it particularly matters, because I don't really care whether it meets anybody's criteria for being a "good" name - the purpose of a name like that is to make sure that neither end of the proposed constituency complains because of a belief that constituency names are somehow meaningful or important.

For once, I think it's a shame we don't use the Australian system of naming constituencies after people. The name "Cook" would be a rather good summary of the seat - it contains his place of birth, where he went to school, and part of the village where he first became an apprentice!

[nyx]

Well I submitted a proposal for a Guisborough and Stokesley seat, pointing out that the Revised Proposals had found no way to fix the Thornaby/Bedale issues without crossing a local authority border. Unlikely to get anywhere but no harm in putting it forward.

BCE-114218

[ClevelandYorks]

Dec 5, 2022 16:26:16 GMT nyx said:

Well I submitted a proposal for a Guisborough and Stokesley seat, pointing out that the Revised Proposals had found no way to fix the Thornaby/Bedale issues without crossing a local authority border. Unlikely to get anywhere but no harm in putting it forward.

BCE-114218

Heresy perhaps, but I don't think the splitting of Thornaby is that bad.  Sure it's a town within its own right, but it's well connected with both Stockton and Middlesbrough and is part of a wider urban sprawl.  Splitting it seems like a reasonable compromise to avoid too much disruption elsewhere.

However, what I have proposed is moving Oxbridge & Parkfield ward back into 'Stockton West', which could then retain the name Stockton South.  This means that the Thornaby and Ingleby wards are better connected with the rest of the constituency rather than isolated peripheries.  In turn, I've stuck the rather self-contained ward of Bishopsgarth & Elm Tree in Stockton North. Finally, I've proposed a ward split in Grangefield ward, putting district GF2 (1048 electors) in Stockton North.  Not only does this make up the numbers, but forms a more coherent boundary, as GF2 (Grangefield proper) blends in with adjacent areas of Newtown ward, while the rest of Grangefield ward is essentially leftover bits of Fairfield and Hartburn. 

I've also suggested renaming Middlesbrough & Thornaby East as 'Middlesbrough Central'.  I'm not going to be very popular in Thornaby!