|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Oct 23, 2017 18:30:45 GMT
This can be done as follows.
Billingham & Sedgefield: delete Chilton and Ferryhill; add Trimdon & Thornley. Electorate 76495.
Bishop Auckland: delete Willington & Hunwick; add Chilton and Ferryhill. Electorate 75434.
City of Durham & Easington: delete Trimdon & Thornley; add Framwellgate & Newton Hall. Electorate: 77766.
North Durham & Chester-le-Street: delete Framwellgate & Newton Hall; add Burnopfield & Dipton and Leadgate & Medomsley. Electorate 77212.
North West Durham: delete Leadgate & Medomsley; add Willington & Hunwick. Electorate: 74536.
The further advantage is reuniting Crook with Willington. Disadvantages are dividing Leadgate & Medomsley from Consett and reducing the isthmus between Durham City and Easington.
May put it in as an appendix.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 24, 2017 2:26:51 GMT
These are my proposed amendments to the revised proposals. Berwick and Morpeth: delete Choppington and Stakeford; add Lynemouth. Electorate: 73286. Blyth and Ashington: delete Lynemouth, Seghill with Seaton Delaval and Holywell; add Choppington and Stakeford . Electorate: 73869. Hexham and Cramlington: delete Prudhoe North and Prudhoe South; add Seghill with Seaton Delaval and Holywell. Electorate: 77442. Blaydon: delete Burnopfield & Dipton and Benwell & Scotswood; add Prudhoe North, Prudhoe South and Woolsington. Electorate: 78181. Newcastle North West: delete Woolsington; add Benwell & Scotswood. Electorate: 71530. ... Newcastle also works like this |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 24, 2017 9:07:59 GMT
At this point I think you're pissing in the wind if you try to change the sub-regions. The BCE clearly got a lot of submissions arguing that Northumberland should be kept intact, they aren't going to change that because of a handful of submissions at the final stage of review. So here's what I would do to tidy things up: 1. Berwick & Morpeth loses Stakeford and Choppington, but gains Lynemouth and Humshaugh. The first swap is an obvious improvement, but Stakeford and Choppington run into each other so it probably wouldn't win over the BCE. The second swap is suboptimal, because Humshaugh runs up to the edge of Hexham, but if we're going to pretend Bellingham has better links with Morpeth than Hexham we can do the same here. You wouldn't get away with it at an earlier stage, but with no further round of representations it might just succeed. 2. Shift Seghall with Seaton Delaval into Hexham & Cramlington. Again, dividing Holywell and Seaton Delaval is less than ideal, but it's needed for electorate equality and you could probably handwave it away. 3. On Tyneside, the key thing is to remove the orphan ward, but this is difficult if you can't touch North Tyneside or Northumberland and don't want to split Whickham. It may be that ward-splitting is your friend, but otherwise I would go for the simple and ugly option of putting Dunston & Teams into Blaydon. It sticks out like a sore thumb on a map, but there are road and rail links and the ward has strong boundaries on its southern edge. If you want you could also swap Woolsington and Benwell & Scotswood, but it makes the seat look even worse on a map. 4. Gateshead West loses Bridges and Deckham, gains High Fell and Windy Nook & Whitehills to ensure electoral equality. A name change is probably required. 5. The BCE didn't listen this time round, but it might be worth arguing again for a ward split of Simonside & Rekendyke. I haven't looked into what the knock-on consequences might be. 6. In County Durham, I would adopt the modifications proposed by La Fontaine at the head of this page. If the ward shapes were slightly more convenient, I'd be tempted to shift Burnopfield and Leadgate the other way and drop the villages to the west of Durham into North Durham, but as it stands that looks too messy and there isn't a case for ward-splitting. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Oct 24, 2017 16:45:18 GMT
I quite agree that changing their minds on Northumberland is very unlikely, but it's so daft I feel I have to try. Nobody advocating keeping Northumberland inviolate actually proposed a sensible way of doing it - because it can't be done. And the Commission say "this would allow for more cohesive constituencies in the entire region". This is patent nonsense, as their Blaydon shows. Cohesive!
Without detaching Prudhoe, there is no chance of removing the orphan ward. Splitting Whickham is even dafter and isn't going to happen. Nor is your Dunston & Teams.
In any case, I'm just enjoying myself, so I might as well bash my head against the brick wall!
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Oct 24, 2017 22:12:24 GMT
On reflection, adding Dunston & Teams would be preferable and would not mean the Commission losing face.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Dec 11, 2017 16:28:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Dec 11, 2017 17:00:07 GMT
Very good. I have made a submission which makes many of the same points.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Dec 11, 2017 20:56:52 GMT
A lot of what you proposed would be a big improvement. Including north Dunston in Blaydon is horrific, but I can't make the numbers work otherwise under that general configuration. Would still be an improvement though. The commission shouldn't be afraid to cross the legal Northumberland-Durham border. Prudhoe should really be in Gateshead council, and all of the Blaydon area west of the River Derwent is more Hexham than Consett. Adding Prudhoe to Blaydon, under numerous different schemes, results in a much better scheme all round. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Aug 29, 2018 17:01:37 GMT
The Newcastle ward boundaries have been changed since the review and came into operation in May. I think it would be possible to tweak the final recommendations, assuming they are unchanged, to bring them into line with the new wards. I wonder whether there's any chance of this happening. It would save a lot of confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Aug 29, 2018 18:21:47 GMT
The Newcastle ward boundaries have been changed since the review and came into operation in May. I think it would be possible to tweak the final recommendations, assuming they are unchanged, to bring them into line with the new wards. I wonder whether there's any chance of this happening. It would save a lot of confusion. If using new wards was allowed (I don't know if it is/was) then Newcastle would not be the place to start, I'd have hoped the BC would sort out the monstrosities in Birmingham first now that they have sensibly sized single member wards. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 5, 2018 9:36:25 GMT
The Newcastle ward boundaries have been changed since the review and came into operation in May. I think it would be possible to tweak the final recommendations, assuming they are unchanged, to bring them into line with the new wards. I wonder whether there's any chance of this happening. It would save a lot of confusion. If using new wards was allowed (I don't know if it is/was) then Newcastle would not be the place to start, I'd have hoped the BC would sort out the monstrosities in Birmingham first now that they have sensibly sized single member wards. I think nineteen of the new Newcastle wards lie wholly within the proposed new constituencies. The remaining seven are divided between two. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 10, 2018 12:07:19 GMT
Final recommendations
Bede ward to be split between South Shields and Jarrow
Boldon Colliery ward moved from South Shields to Jarrow
Simonside and Rekendyke ward moved from Jarrow to South Shields
Gateshead West renamed to Gateshead
North Durham and Chester-le-Street renamed to North Durham
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 10, 2018 13:38:54 GMT
The reason it was called Gateshead West was because it excluded the eastern half of Gateshead. Never mind that half the now Gateshead seat is not actually Gateshead šš
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 10, 2018 13:58:27 GMT
Judging by some of the names elsewhere, we can at least be thankful we don't have "Ashington, Blyth and North Durham" or some other naming monstrosity  |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 10, 2018 14:05:51 GMT
Northumberland is 3 seats. The most conservative bits of Blyth Valley and Wansbeck move into the other two seats (Cramlington is now with Hexham and Morpeth is now with Berwick). These two seats are then combined to give an ultra safe labour seat.
With Ronnie Campbell and Ian Lavery fighting for the seat š though I think Ronnie will retire anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 10, 2018 14:21:35 GMT
With Ronnie Campbell and Ian Lavery fighting for the seat š though I think Ronnie will retire anyway To spend more time with the horses, no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 10, 2018 15:41:09 GMT
Disappointing final proposals. The orphan ward in Blaydon remains. The Commission say some such arrangement is invevitable (para 406) but this is simply untrue.
Meanwhile, the Bede ward is split, which is highly undesirable in terms of public confusion.
The division of Northumberland as proposed is fairly absurd and, again, is unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 10, 2018 21:10:21 GMT
Final recommendations Bede ward to be split between South Shields and Jarrow To split Bede ward is an insult to these venerable constituencies.... OR: If Bede ward is under threat of being split, does that make it the vulnerable Bede? |
|
