|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 6, 2016 20:40:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 6, 2016 21:12:53 GMT
Interesting plan here, especially with the recreation of the pre-1974 Teesside seats. I must however say that your proposed 'Newcastle North' is really 'Newcastle East' geographically.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 6, 2016 21:39:24 GMT
As a former resident of the old Tyne Bridge, I actually thought (and still do) that it made some sort of sense even if it did cross a traditional county boundary. It certainly shouldn't be compared to Wallasey/Kirkdale or other such horrors that have been proposed in the past  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 6, 2016 22:06:33 GMT
Interesting plan here, especially with the recreation of the pre-1974 Teesside seats. I must however say that your proposed 'Newcastle North' is really 'Newcastle East' geographically. I don't see why it is 'really'. It doesn't include the Easternmost parts of Newcastle which are in my Tyne Bridge. It does include the Northernmost parts of Newcastle and it includes areas that are well to the West of the city centre. If you're saying that it contains more of the current seat called Newcastle East than the current seat called Newcastle North, that may be true, but it is also irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on Apr 6, 2016 23:31:55 GMT
I was bored so I've come up with a plan for the English region I know least well. I have concluded, as boundary commisioners did 40 years ago, that a Tyne Bridge seat is the answer even though it isn't one I like. The rest seems to fall into place reasonably well
Stanley in with Gateshead is uncomfortable. Stanley really looks only east/west to Chester and/or Consett.
Seems a shame to have so much of Sunderland in non-Sunderland seats - everything east of A19 is very clearly part of the city and it is a very strong boundary.
Your Sedgefield is also a bit straggly, extending right into urban Stockton.
And I would love to see you tell people in Yarm you want to put them into a Middlesbrough seat - they think Stockton is bad enough :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 7, 2016 15:08:20 GMT
The Sunderland situation is a modification of the statues quo - Sunderland Central is unchanged and with the rest of the city hived off between Washington and Houghton as now, but I've dropped Sunderland from the names. I tried to recreate a Sunderland North and South but it isn't possible without crossing the A19 and if you do it in a different way to currently you're going to end up splitting either Washington or Houghton.
I thought people in Yarm might prefer to be in a seat entirely South of the Tees (ie entirely Yorkshire). We could call that seat Thornaby but not sure that would help?
|
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on Apr 8, 2016 13:26:28 GMT
The Sunderland situation is a modification of the statues quo - Sunderland Central is unchanged and with the rest of the city hived off between Washington and Houghton as now, but I've dropped Sunderland from the names. I tried to recreate a Sunderland North and South but it isn't possible without crossing the A19 and if you do it in a different way to currently you're going to end up splitting either Washington or Houghton. I thought people in Yarm might prefer to be in a seat entirely South of the Tees (ie entirely Yorkshire). We could call that seat Thornaby but not sure that would help? What people in Yarm really want, of course, is to join Richmond ...
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 8, 2016 14:02:51 GMT
The Sunderland situation is a modification of the statues quo - Sunderland Central is unchanged and with the rest of the city hived off between Washington and Houghton as now, but I've dropped Sunderland from the names. I tried to recreate a Sunderland North and South but it isn't possible without crossing the A19 and if you do it in a different way to currently you're going to end up splitting either Washington or Houghton. I thought people in Yarm might prefer to be in a seat entirely South of the Tees (ie entirely Yorkshire). We could call that seat Thornaby but not sure that would help? What people in Yarm really want, of course, is to join Richmond ... <pedantic psephologist hat on> But Richmond is currently in quota - if you add Yarm it would be oversized... |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 16, 2016 12:02:35 GMT
Yes, it only makes sense if a) you're trying to gerrymander and b) you are assuming that the Commission will be too busy sniffing glue to notice. Even then, the numbers don't really work. Hexham and Cramlington is ugly and poorly connected, but Berwick and Hexham would be worse by an order of magnitude. (All of this assuming the Prudhoe transfer - I didn't bother drawing anything without it.) The main issue with the Tory gerrymander is of course the random chop of Choppington. Probably inspired by the place name or something. Realistically speaking, Blyth and Ashington without Cramlington has an electorate of 81.5k that oughtn't to be removed from. Chopping Choppington in half is what the zombie commissioners did, you can at least use both wards now. Or else use West Bedlington instead for a slightly cleaner look and respected parish boundaries (bottom left right) - though in fact you're back to running the boundary through builtup residential territory. If you want to do the Labour gerrymander instead, move Pontisland into Blyth Valley and all of the old Castle Morpeth seat plus Amble into Wansbeck (bottom right left). Unapologetic gerrymanders, they both are. If you want to try to avoid either, let me suggest the thing at top left. One Labour pack, one Tory pack, nobody's happy. Someone else do the math on who'd actually win Ashington & Berwick (though the math would be misleading, actually, because Alan Beith). You can even have your Hexham & Berwick cake and eat it too (top right), though I don't see whose preferred option that would be.  |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 16, 2016 12:36:42 GMT
Here's the rest of the region.  -Putting Yarm in with Middlesbrough S works just fine east of the Tees, not so much west of it. -the boundaries in and around Spennymoor and towards Durham city are utterly dreadful and it's all the ward design's fault, not the general outline of my plan's. Tell the LGBCE what it can do with its warding arrangement and just use parish boundaries instead, and you can easily reunite Spennymoor and draw a more sensible map. -what I'd really liked to have drawn in Sunderland was Washington & Houghton, but it's too large by 89. The one shown here is the one of several (but not that many) legal arrangements that is remarkably minimum change. Sunderland Central is unchanged. -Blaydon with Prudhoe, Gateshead with the two wards currently in Jarrow works so well, it'd be a shame not to draw it. So, no Tyne Bridge for me then. The problem, of course, is that North Tyneside can stand unchanged and that there is no crossing on the Tyne between Newcastle and Jarrow. There is, however, a tunnel between Wallsend and Jarrow... and indeed, Tyne Tunnel works less badly than Tyne Banks does. Tynemouth can remain unchanged. -In this version, Newcastle North adds one (N Tyneside) ward, Newcastle C adds a couple of east-central Newcastle wards, and the rest of East and the rest of North Tyneside are merged. So quite nondisruptive really. Yes, I know: this leaves Gosforth split and creates an orphan ward. There are a large number of other Newcastle arrangements, none entirely satisfactory. -There are better-looking options available if you add the Northumberland ward to the mix and then bring the Tunnel seat up to par by adding Simonside & Rekendyke ward in South Shields (Boldon Colliery is too large). But that's part of South Shields proper. I really don't want to go there. (In redistricting terms I mean - I have no objection to visiting South Shields!) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 17, 2016 9:05:59 GMT
Rejigged Central Durham to get rid of the Spennymoor issue. City of Durham area still won't like it much, though the city itself is not split in either plan. (Also exchanged Ryhope and Silksworth in Sunderland. Makes more sense that way, though St Chad's is unfortunately still included in Houghton & Seaham.)  EDIT: Or you could even switch the four Houghton wards for Peterlee etc for "City of Durham and Houghton-le-Spring" and "Easington & Sunderland South". |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 17, 2016 11:02:48 GMT
Well, I'll put my money on it that there won't be a Durham City and Houghton seat at the next general election!
I was doing a plan yesterday that crossed the Sunderland-Easington border and ended up with something similar to your map above. Durham-Easington is not unthinkable. Durham City people aren't particularly snobbish, or at least they weren't when I lived there, so they wouldn't object in principle to being "lumped" with areas they aren't traditionally part of.
Having said that, I think a plan that has a seat centred on Durham is much more likely to succeed, since the affinity with the neighbouring villages is strong.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 17, 2016 11:26:12 GMT
Well, I'll put my money on it that there won't be a Durham City and Houghton seat at the next general election! I was doing a plan yesterday that crossed the Sunderland-Easington border and ended up with something similar to your map above. Durham-Easington is not unthinkable. Durham City people aren't particularly snobbish, or at least they weren't when I lived there, so they wouldn't object in principle to being "lumped" with areas they aren't traditionally part of. Yeah, the issue is more with having its traditional hinterland / commuter villages to the west chopped off and the city being paired with something else that isn't chopped itself. (It's actually the villages that are getting the short end of the stick here, not the city itself.) That said, Durham city is, of course, a bastion of middle-class poshness. But only by County Durham standards.  (Durham with Houghton has better transport links than Durham with Peterlee and is probably the cleanest solution there is for Houghton. But it is, of course, a double crossing of the Tyne & Wear - County Durham line. There's a reason why it only occurred to me as an afterthought. It's counterintuitive.) I gotta try if it's at all possible to draw a city-based seat. It's not looking good though. Maybe Durham & Crook etc, Consett & Stanley, Chester & Houghton, Easington & Sunderland S could be made to work? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 17, 2016 16:51:37 GMT
Possible, yes. Pretty, no.  City of Durham and NW Durham then must split the purple wards two-and-two; any of the four combinations allowed by contiguity works. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 17, 2016 17:24:17 GMT
Minion -
You seem determined to retain a single Sunderland seat. I suggest, instead, linking the five Washington wards plus the splendidly-named Shiney Row with Chester-le-Street. Hetton then goes into Easington, unfortunately crossing the Sunderland-Durham border twice (which you seem resigned to anyway). The remaining Sunderland wards then divide very nicely into north and south seats, and Durham city then falls naturally in the middle of its own seat bounded by Willingdon, Deerness and Esh to the east, and Sherburn and Coxhoe to the east.
Numbers:
SUNDERLAND NORTH - 72096
SUNDERLAND SOUTH - 72637
CHESTER-LE-STREET AND WASHINGTON - 78216
EASINGTON - 76117
DURHAM - 77481
CONSETT - 77901 (its southern border marked by Lanchester, as you have it)
BISHOP AUCKLAND - 76868
SEDGEFIELD AND BILLINGHAM - 75004
HARTLEPOOL - 74302 (i.e. taking just the one Durham ward of Blackhalls)
The rest more or less as you have it, although I'd suggest Eston ward might fit more neatly into Redcar)
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Apr 17, 2016 17:43:54 GMT
There are several irreconcilable issues in Durham. My first instinct was to have separate Durham City and Easington seats, even though this means an ungainly West Durham. Also, it's not desirable to split Spennymoor parish, but also not desirable to separate Leadgate and Medomsley from Consett, though the area is unparished.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Apr 18, 2016 16:37:00 GMT
-Blaydon with Prudhoe, Gateshead with the two wards currently in Jarrow works so well, it'd be a shame not to draw it. So, no Tyne Bridge for me then. The problem, of course, is that North Tyneside can stand unchanged and that there is no crossing on the Tyne between Newcastle and Jarrow. There is, however, a tunnel between Wallsend and Jarrow... and indeed, Tyne Tunnel works less badly than Tyne Banks does. Tynemouth can remain unchanged. Just to clarify (my geographies awful), would the Gateshead constituency be solely in the city of Gateshead and the Blaydon constituency be solely in the city of Gateshead + Prudhoe? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 19, 2016 19:18:09 GMT
-Blaydon with Prudhoe, Gateshead with the two wards currently in Jarrow works so well, it'd be a shame not to draw it. So, no Tyne Bridge for me then. The problem, of course, is that North Tyneside can stand unchanged and that there is no crossing on the Tyne between Newcastle and Jarrow. There is, however, a tunnel between Wallsend and Jarrow... and indeed, Tyne Tunnel works less badly than Tyne Banks does. Tynemouth can remain unchanged. Just to clarify (my geographies awful), would the Gateshead constituency be solely in the city of Gateshead and the Blaydon constituency be solely in the city of Gateshead + Prudhoe? Yes. (And including the whole of the city of Gateshead between them.) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 19, 2016 19:24:35 GMT
There are several irreconcilable issues in Durham. My first instinct was to have separate Durham City and Easington seats, even though this means an ungainly West Durham. Also, it's not desirable to split Spennymoor parish, but also not desirable to separate Leadgate and Medomsley from Consett, though the area is unparished. Figured that was probably the case, yeah. NW Durham is a pretty badly drawn disparate seat in that version; just happens to look good at a casual glance. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 19, 2016 19:27:46 GMT
Minion - You seem determined to retain a single Sunderland seat. I suggest, instead, linking the five Washington wards plus the splendidly-named Shiney Row with Chester-le-Street. Hetton then goes into Easington, unfortunately crossing the Sunderland-Durham border twice (which you seem resigned to anyway). Ah, but much less consigned to it if it's creating an orphan ward and splitting Houghton (or greater Houghton or the Houghton area or whatever; those four wards anyways) three ways. It's 1.5 Sunderland seats (plus, just as unfortunately, one or two wards depending whether you think Ryhope is Sunderland) anyways, not 1. |
|
