|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 30, 2016 11:12:35 GMT
I still think a Tyne Bridge seat is reasonable, so I'm still in favour of my initial efforts with a couple of modifications (least change in Middlesborough; putting Prudhoe into Blaydon and using that to neaten up Tyne Bridge.) But if you are dead set against it, here's a plausible option for Northumberland and Tyneside which I think works reasonably well:  Berwick and Morpeth (73286) - Berwick gains Pegswood, Bellingham and Morpeth Ashington & Blyth (73869) - the rest of Wansbeck, plus Blyth town and Hartley Tynemouth (74618) - unchanged North Tyneside (76427) - unchanged Newcastle East (72409) - gains Gosforth Newcastle West (77078) - successor to Central, loses West Gosforth and gains the old Newburn UD Cramlington & Newcastle North (73901) - Holywell, Seghill with Seaton Delaval, Cramlington, Ponteland and the Newcastle wards of Castle, Woolsington, Fawdon and Parklands Blaydon & Hexham (72591) - the rest of Hexham and the five westernmost wards of Gateshead Gateshead (75965) - loses Felling, High Fell and Windy Nook & Whitehills, gains Birtley, Lamesley and Whickham Jarrow & Gateshead East (74770) - loses the two Boldon wards, gains Simonside & Rekendyke from South Shields and Felling, High Fell and Windy Nook & Whitehills from Gateshead South Shields (71143) - gains the Boldon wards, loses Simonside & Rekendyke The Gateshead and South Tyneside portion appears to have been proposed in identical form by longmonty. The major problem there is putting Simonside & Rekendyke into the Jarrow seat, but the Simonside area at least appears to have close links to the Bede Estate. You can fix this, but only at the cost of splitting Whickham, which isn't any better. The innovative bit is what I've done with Cramlington. Whilst several plans have linked it with North Tyneside, I think this is much worse than Tyne Bridge, because you aren't just crossing a local authority boundary, you're also creating a lot of unnecessary change (I don't accept that the Tyne is a particularly impermeable physical or social barrier in the city centre.) On the other hand, putting Cramlington directly with Newcastle makes a lot of sense. There are good links down the A1 (which does go through North Tyneside, but if you're driving you're not likely to notice this) and it's clearly commuter suburbia. The case for putting Ponteland with northern Newcastle is even more obvious. What's more, this permits a nice split of Newcastle straight through the city centre, and being able to keep the cohesive block of four wards in the south-west together is a nice bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 30, 2016 11:52:38 GMT
I still think a Tyne Bridge seat is reasonable, so I'm still in favour of my initial efforts with a couple of modifications (least change in Middlesborough; putting Prudhoe into Blaydon and using that to neaten up Tyne Bridge.) But if you are dead set against it, here's a plausible option for Northumberland and Tyneside which I think works reasonably well: Berwick and Morpeth (73286) - Berwick gains Pegswood, Bellingham and Morpeth Ashington & Blyth (73869) - the rest of Wansbeck, plus Blyth town and Hartley Tynemouth (74618) - unchanged North Tyneside (76427) - unchanged Newcastle East (72409) - gains Gosforth Newcastle West (77078) - successor to Central, loses West Gosforth and gains the old Newburn UD Cramlington & Newcastle North (73901) - Holywell, Seghill with Seaton Delaval, Cramlington, Ponteland and the Newcastle wards of Castle, Woolsington, Fawdon and Parklands Blaydon & Hexham (72591) - the rest of Hexham and the five westernmost wards of Gateshead Gateshead (75965) - loses Felling, High Fell and Windy Nook & Whitehills, gains Birtley, Lamesley and Whickham Jarrow & Gateshead East (74770) - loses the two Boldon wards, gains Simonside & Rekendyke from South Shields and Felling, High Fell and Windy Nook & Whitehills from Gateshead South Shields (71143) - gains the Boldon wards, loses Simonside & Rekendyke The Gateshead and South Tyneside portion appears to have been proposed in identical form by longmonty. The major problem there is putting Simonside & Rekendyke into the Jarrow seat, but the Simonside area at least appears to have close links to the Bede Estate. You can fix this, but only at the cost of splitting Whickham, which isn't any better. The innovative bit is what I've done with Cramlington. Whilst several plans have linked it with North Tyneside, I think this is much worse than Tyne Bridge, because you aren't just crossing a local authority boundary, you're also creating a lot of unnecessary change (I don't accept that the Tyne is a particularly impermeable physical or social barrier in the city centre.) On the other hand, putting Cramlington directly with Newcastle makes a lot of sense. There are good links down the A1 (which does go through North Tyneside, but if you're driving you're not likely to notice this) and it's clearly commuter suburbia. The case for putting Ponteland with northern Newcastle is even more obvious. What's more, this permits a nice split of Newcastle straight through the city centre, and being able to keep the cohesive block of four wards in the south-west together is a nice bonus. Lefty - You're a genius. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 30, 2016 12:08:40 GMT
Rechecking my work, I've noticed I left Haltwhistle out of the Hexham seat. That doesn't affect anything, but it's worth noting. Also, you can swap Seghill & Seaton Delaval and Hartley for the Bedlington wards, which makes Newcastle North look more compact. As an added bonus, it serves my secondary objective of trying to drown out Ponteland with as much Labour territory as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 30, 2016 12:39:39 GMT
Rechecking my work, I've noticed I left Haltwhistle out of the Hexham seat. That doesn't affect anything, but it's worth noting. Also, you can swap Seghill & Seaton Delaval and Hartley for the Bedlington wards, which makes Newcastle North look more compact. As an added bonus, it serves my secondary objective of trying to drown out Ponteland with as much Labour territory as possible. I'd spotted the omission of Haltwhistle, and I'd already made the Bedlington switch. I'd call the seat 'Newcastle upon Tyne North and Bedlington' because although Bedlington's a smaller place than Cramlington, it's probably better known. This is by far the best plan I've seen for this area. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 30, 2016 13:02:50 GMT
Simonside issue can be fixed (and probably should be) if you're willing to splitting Gateshead proper north-south.  Also, this looks inspired by the zombie map. They too had Cramlington in a Newkie seat and they had Hexham crossing into Blaydon rather than vice-versa (here it's a fifty-fifty seat). Certainly fixes a lot of issues, though. Though the gerrymander sniff factor is high with this one. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 30, 2016 13:26:47 GMT
Moving on to take a second look at Durham and try out some new ideas, I came up with this:  Redcar (73840) Middlesborough South & East Cleveland (78241) Middlesborough North & Thornaby (71306) Stockton upon Tees (75818) Darlington (74929) Billingham & Aycliffe (78309) Hartlepool (74302) Easington (75449) City of Durham (73892) Bishop Auckland (77152) North West Durham (77901) Chester-le-Street & Washington (76829) Sunderland North (71375) Houghton & Sunderland South (75413) Not much to report in Teesside, where I've gone for a least change plan instead of my initial rearrangement. My conclusion is that minimum change looks pretty horrible and an east/west split of Middlesborough is to be preferred, greater change notwithstanding. In Durham, I've stolen quite a lot from longmonty's second plan, particularly Chester-le-Street & Washington and City of Durham. Unlike him, I've tried to keep Houghton unified, at the cost of putting a Sunderland ward in with Washington and Ryhope going into Easington (which isn't a particularly high cost.) Tow Law in City of Durham is a little odd, but it looks nicer than putting Willington & Hunswick there. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 30, 2016 13:29:23 GMT
Simonside issue can be fixed (and probably should be) if you're willing to splitting Gateshead proper north-south. Also, this looks inspired by the zombie map. They too had Cramlington in a Newkie seat and they had Hexham crossing into Blaydon rather than vice-versa (here it's a fifty-fifty seat). Certainly fixes a lot of issues, though. Though the gerrymander sniff factor is high with this one. I hadn't checked the zombie map. I remember it being horrible and had therefore ignored it. The gerrymandering wasn't intentional, at least not until I added in Bedlington - believe me, if that was my aim, I wouldn't be subtle enough to hide it. I think it's a function of trying to avoid shifting other seats, which inevitably forces bigger changes in the ones you are willing to move. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on May 8, 2016 1:13:32 GMT
I'm from Gateshead and I think these would be the best constituencies:
Gateshead West and Prudhoe - Prudhoe South, Prudhoe North, Crawcrook and Greenside, Winlaton and High Spen, 'Ryton, Crookhill and Stella', Chopwell and Rowlands Gill, Blaydon, Dunston and Teams, Dunston Hill and Whickham East, Whickham North, Whickham South and Sunniside, and Bridges,
Gateshead East - Lobley Hill and Bensham, Lamesley, Birtley, Chowdene, High Fell, Low Fell, Deckham, Windy Nook and Whitehills, Felling, Pelaw and Heworth, and Wardley and Leam Lane. May also add Bywell if absolutely necessary.
These constituencies achieve the following:
Within the quota
2 constituencies almost wholly in Gateshead (regain Pelaw and Heworth + Wardley and Leam Lane from Jarrow constituency)
Ensured Prudhoe is united
Prudhoe wards are the most closely linked wards to Gateshead so best choice to add
Ensured 5 west Gateshead wards are united
Ensured Whickham is united
Ensured Dunston is united
Ensured Lobley Hill and Bensham + Saltwell are united
I'm really not keen the current ward boundaries (especially combining unrelated areas into 1 ward). Also, I think these constituencies where Gateshead is split into 4 constituencies would be disasterous and they seem to be randomly drawn with no consideration for trying to keep areas together.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 8, 2016 9:05:35 GMT
Those might be the best boundaries for Gateshead, but Wallsend and Jarrow isn't happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 8, 2016 9:12:07 GMT
Surely you mean 'Tyne Banks'.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on May 8, 2016 10:19:13 GMT
Those might be the best boundaries for Gateshead, but Wallsend and Jarrow isn't happening. Why not? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 8, 2016 10:22:01 GMT
Those might be the best boundaries for Gateshead, but Wallsend and Jarrow isn't happening. Why not? Because the Tyne's boundaries are stronger and more obvious on the ground than those of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on May 8, 2016 10:34:41 GMT
Because the Tyne's boundaries are stronger and more obvious on the ground than those of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead. Good point. Is there no way to create seats separated by the Tyne within the quota while keeping Gateshead in 2 constituencies? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 8, 2016 10:58:27 GMT
It is possible but it causes knock-on effects elsewhere. South Tyneside has 1.5 seats so that would have to join with North Sunderland, causing the seats there to be completely redrawn. You would also probably have some sort of Hexham and Consett seat crossing the Durham/Northumberland border.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 8, 2016 11:06:19 GMT
Because the Tyne's boundaries are stronger and more obvious on the ground than those of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead. Good point. Is there no way to create seats separated by the Tyne within the quota while keeping Gateshead in 2 constituencies? Realistically, I don't think there is. Unless you're willing to break the Gateshead boundary with Newcastle (i.e., a Tyne Bridge seat), then I think you have to break it at both the eastern and western ends. East Anglian Lefty may not want to blow his own trumpet, so let me blow it for him: on 30 Apr he posted an elegant way of achieving this that I'm a great fan of. Could you live with it? |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on May 8, 2016 12:12:43 GMT
Good point. Is there no way to create seats separated by the Tyne within the quota while keeping Gateshead in 2 constituencies? Realistically, I don't think there is. Unless you're willing to break the Gateshead boundary with Newcastle (i.e., a Tyne Bridge seat), then I think you have to break it at both the eastern and western ends. East Anglian Lefty may not want to blow his own trumpet, so let me blow it for him: on 30 Apr he posted an elegant way of achieving this that I'm a great fan of. Could you live with it? Can I not have a Conservative MP?  If Gateshead is to be split into 3 or more co statue cies, EAL's plan is pretty much as good as it can get. However, I do think it's important to keep Gateshead in 2 wards/pretty much 2 wards if possible. Culturally, there isn't much room to expand beyond Gateshead if you want the constituency to be cohesive. Prudhoe North and South can included, Bywell (mainly because of Wylam) possibly and the Ponteland wards at an absolute push. There really isn't much scope for other wards that are west or south of Gateshead to be included. I would say the same for wards east of the city to a degree as well. I think a Tyne Bridge seat would be the best option if you can't do limited western expansion. People live and work either side of the river, it's largely a continuously built up area and it really doesn't feel that much different. I know there's the river, but people have much more to do with any part of Newcastle than they do with Hexham or the rural areas south of Gateshead. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 8, 2016 16:16:14 GMT
Realistically, I don't think there is. Unless you're willing to break the Gateshead boundary with Newcastle (i.e., a Tyne Bridge seat), then I think you have to break it at both the eastern and western ends. East Anglian Lefty may not want to blow his own trumpet, so let me blow it for him: on 30 Apr he posted an elegant way of achieving this that I'm a great fan of. Could you live with it? Can I not have a Conservative MP? If Gateshead is to be split into 3 or more co statue cies, EAL's plan is pretty much as good as it can get. However, I do think it's important to keep Gateshead in 2 wards/pretty much 2 wards if possible. Culturally, there isn't much room to expand beyond Gateshead if you want the constituency to be cohesive. Prudhoe North and South can included, Bywell (mainly because of Wylam) possibly and the Ponteland wards at an absolute push. There really isn't much scope for other wards that are west or south of Gateshead to be included. I would say the same for wards east of the city to a degree as well. I think a Tyne Bridge seat would be the best option if you can't do limited western expansion. People live and work either side of the river, it's largely a continuously built up area and it really doesn't feel that much different. I know there's the river, but people have much more to do with any part of Newcastle than they do with Hexham or the rural areas south of Gateshead. TBF, Electoral Calculus has Hexham & Blaydon as reasonably securely Labour. Their notionals are famously crap at the best of times and they're entirely untrustworthy in Hexham (they reckon about two-thirds of Oppermann's majority came from Ponteland, which isn't credible). Even so, I still think it'd be marginal at worse - though I'd value Pete Whitehead's opinion here. I'm not convinced that Gateshead as a borough needs to be kept in two seats - the villages and small towns in the west of the borough are distinct from Gateshead proper in the east. However, I do think that it would be preferable not to divide Gateshead proper in two in the way that my effort did. If you can find a way to do that, I'm all ears (though it probably involves breaching the South Tyneside-Sunderland boundary and putting most of Blaydon in with the west of Newcastle. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on May 8, 2016 16:50:19 GMT
Can I not have a Conservative MP? If Gateshead is to be split into 3 or more co statue cies, EAL's plan is pretty much as good as it can get. However, I do think it's important to keep Gateshead in 2 wards/pretty much 2 wards if possible. Culturally, there isn't much room to expand beyond Gateshead if you want the constituency to be cohesive. Prudhoe North and South can included, Bywell (mainly because of Wylam) possibly and the Ponteland wards at an absolute push. There really isn't much scope for other wards that are west or south of Gateshead to be included. I would say the same for wards east of the city to a degree as well. I think a Tyne Bridge seat would be the best option if you can't do limited western expansion. People live and work either side of the river, it's largely a continuously built up area and it really doesn't feel that much different. I know there's the river, but people have much more to do with any part of Newcastle than they do with Hexham or the rural areas south of Gateshead. TBF, Electoral Calculus has Hexham & Blaydon as reasonably securely Labour. Their notionals are famously crap at the best of times and they're entirely untrustworthy in Hexham (they reckon about two-thirds of Oppermann's majority came from Ponteland, which isn't credible). Even so, I still think it'd be marginal at worse - though I'd value Pete Whitehead 's opinion here. I'm not convinced that Gateshead as a borough needs to be kept in two seats - the villages and small towns in the west of the borough are distinct from Gateshead proper in the east. However, I do think that it would be preferable not to divide Gateshead proper in two in the way that my effort did. If you can find a way to do that, I'm all ears (though it probably involves breaching the South Tyneside-Sunderland boundary and putting most of Blaydon in with the west of Newcastle. Interesting that you say that. I would have considered the west of Gateshead to very much be the urban, Newcastle centric part of Gateshead, although maybe the east is relatively more so. I just can't see a cohesive seat that combines parts of Gateshead with places like Hexham and Durham, we are much more linked and closer to Newcastle. If you need Gateshead council wards for other constituencies, I think the best options are Wardley and Leam Lane + Pelaw and Heworth since they are already not part of Gateshead centric constituencies, along with Lamesley + Birtley which are pretty rural and distant from rest of Gateshead. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 8, 2016 18:32:36 GMT
Can I not have a Conservative MP? If Gateshead is to be split into 3 or more co statue cies, EAL's plan is pretty much as good as it can get. However, I do think it's important to keep Gateshead in 2 wards/pretty much 2 wards if possible. Culturally, there isn't much room to expand beyond Gateshead if you want the constituency to be cohesive. Prudhoe North and South can included, Bywell (mainly because of Wylam) possibly and the Ponteland wards at an absolute push. There really isn't much scope for other wards that are west or south of Gateshead to be included. I would say the same for wards east of the city to a degree as well. I think a Tyne Bridge seat would be the best option if you can't do limited western expansion. People live and work either side of the river, it's largely a continuously built up area and it really doesn't feel that much different. I know there's the river, but people have much more to do with any part of Newcastle than they do with Hexham or the rural areas south of Gateshead. TBF, Electoral Calculus has Hexham & Blaydon as reasonably securely Labour. Their notionals are famously crap at the best of times and they're entirely untrustworthy in Hexham (they reckon about two-thirds of Oppermann's majority came from Ponteland, which isn't credible). Even so, I still think it'd be marginal at worse - though I'd value Pete Whitehead's opinion here.
I'm not convinced that Gateshead as a borough needs to be kept in two seats - the villages and small towns in the west of the borough are distinct from Gateshead proper in the east. However, I do think that it would be preferable not to divide Gateshead proper in two in the way that my effort did. If you can find a way to do that, I'm all ears (though it probably involves breaching the South Tyneside-Sunderland boundary and putting most of Blaydon in with the west of Newcastle. What are the boundaries you're asking about here? I have notional results for both Tyne & Wear and Northumberland wards which I flatter myself are superior to those found on Electoral calculus |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2016 11:07:18 GMT
TBF, Electoral Calculus has Hexham & Blaydon as reasonably securely Labour. Their notionals are famously crap at the best of times and they're entirely untrustworthy in Hexham (they reckon about two-thirds of Oppermann's majority came from Ponteland, which isn't credible). Even so, I still think it'd be marginal at worse - though I'd value Pete Whitehead's opinion here.
I'm not convinced that Gateshead as a borough needs to be kept in two seats - the villages and small towns in the west of the borough are distinct from Gateshead proper in the east. However, I do think that it would be preferable not to divide Gateshead proper in two in the way that my effort did. If you can find a way to do that, I'm all ears (though it probably involves breaching the South Tyneside-Sunderland boundary and putting most of Blaydon in with the west of Newcastle. What are the boundaries you're asking about here? I have notional results for both Tyne & Wear and Northumberland wards which I flatter myself are superior to those found on Electoral calculus  |
|
