|
|
Post by mrhell on Sept 13, 2016 10:28:30 GMT
Putting just Barnard Castle West in with consett and chopwell is real pitchfork bait. I thought Consett and Barnard Castle last time was bad. A mate of mine lives on Chopwell and it is effectively in County Durham. However, it is a little different from Barnard Castle. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 13, 2016 10:53:54 GMT
Putting just Barnard Castle West in with consett and chopwell is real pitchfork bait. I thought Consett and Barnard Castle last time was bad. A mate of mine lives on Chopwell and it is effectively in County Durham. However, it is a little different from Barnard Castle. I agree that Chopwell actually does fit with consett reasonably well, and if they need another ward from gateshead then Winlaton and High Spen is the only real choice. It's the Barnard Castle split that is pure nonsense. The only road connections to Barnard Castle west within the constituency are a couple of minor roads from Weardale, which are a nice drive in summer but hell in the winter. Why they put Barnard Castle West into that seat when Willington and Hunwick would be much better, given that Willinton and Hunwick ward borders both Crook and Lanchester wards and is clearly more contiguous. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on Sept 13, 2016 14:08:37 GMT
Some notional estimates:
Darlington - Move from marginal Labour to ultra-marginal Conservative.
Stockton West - Pretty safe Conservative, Stockton South was reasonably more marginal.
Bishop Auckland - Previously marginal but now pretty safe Labour.
Hexham and Consett - Safe Conservative.
Berwick and Ashington - Marginal Conservative, Labour 2nd.
Hartlepool - Moves from marginal to reasonably safe Labour.
So overall we would see the Conservatives gain 1 seat and Labour lose 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 13, 2016 14:11:23 GMT
Anthony Wells has Berwick and Ashington as notionally Labour - Lab 16,300, C 15,100.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 13, 2016 15:04:05 GMT
Putting just Barnard Castle West in with consett and chopwell is real pitchfork bait. I thought Consett and Barnard Castle last time was bad. A mate of mine lives on Chopwell and it is effectively in County Durham. However, it is a little different from Barnard Castle. Most of the ward is Rowlands Gill, not Chopwell, and definitely not in County Durham. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 13, 2016 15:32:20 GMT
There are FIVE orphan wards (none in my proposals). Gateshead is split between FIVE constituencies (three in my proposals). The north County Durham boundary is crossed FOUR times (once in my proposals). Washington is split THREE ways (not at all by me). It really is a mess.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 13, 2016 15:36:21 GMT
Anthony Wells has Berwick and Ashington as notionally Labour - Lab 16,300, C 15,100. On further reflection that's probably right. 2020 result would depend on whether Labour are winning more rural wards north of Ashington and what happens to the Lib Dem vote in Berwick. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 13, 2016 15:39:10 GMT
A mate of mine lives on Chopwell and it is effectively in County Durham. However, it is a little different from Barnard Castle. Most of the ward is Rowlands Gill, not Chopwell, and definitely not in County Durham. I think the villages in western Gateshead (minus Winlaton and Blaydon) could have been construed as being part of County Durham. However, this would very much be Consett, Chester-le-Street at an absolute push, but certainly not anywhere near Barnard Castle. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 15:42:53 GMT
3 seats unchanged in the North East:
North Tyneside.
Sunderland Central.
Tynemouth.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 13, 2016 15:47:14 GMT
There are FIVE orphan wards (none in my proposals). Gateshead is split between FIVE constituencies (three in my proposals). The north County Durham boundary is crossed FOUR times (once in my proposals). It really is a mess. Agreed that it's a mess. My Gateshead proposal also has 3 splits (Blaydon + Prudhoe, Gateshead, Lamesley/Birtley + Chester-le-Street). For north Durham area I have Durham City + Crook, Bishop Auckland, Chester-le-Street and Consett + Hexham. Even with county splitting I think it can be done a lot better than the Commissions proposal. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 13, 2016 15:49:44 GMT
3 seats unchanged in the North East: North Tyneside. Sunderland Central. Tynemouth. North Tyneside and Tynemouth unchanged are biggest problem imo. It led them to do Tyne Bridge, split Ponteland, Berwick + Ashington etc. In a perfect world they would be unchanged but it's just too harmful elsewhere. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Sept 13, 2016 18:13:43 GMT
Anthony Wells has Berwick and Ashington as notionally Labour - Lab 16,300, C 15,100. On further reflection that's probably right. 2020 result would depend on whether Labour are winning more rural wards north of Ashington and what happens to the Lib Dem vote in Berwick. Yes, Northumberland is technically a Labour gerrymander albeit one of the crazy risky ones favoured by the Pennsylvania Republicans or (RIP!!!!!) the Georgia Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 14, 2016 11:50:02 GMT
I await the local political parties responses to this (assuming boundary review does go ahead, which is certainly by no means a given). Think you will get some unanimity between the parties for some of the objections, though they may have different solutions.
With most regions, there will need to be some tweaks here and there and possibly one or two major changes but nothing above that. For the north east, they should be told to go back to the drawing board and start again and try to produce something that doesn't look like a dog's breakfast.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 14, 2016 11:59:47 GMT
I await the local political parties responses to this (assuming boundary review does go ahead, which is certainly by no means a given). Think you will get some unanimity between the parties for some of the objections, though they may have different solutions. With most regions, there will need to be some tweaks here and there and possibly one or two major changes but nothing above that. For the north east, they should be told to go back to the drawing board and start again and try to produce something that doesn't look like a dog's breakfast. It really is. I've attempted to sort out some of the worst problems eg; Stockton, Washington etc, but they always result in seats out of quota and fixing them requires big changes elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on Sept 14, 2016 16:49:59 GMT
A selection of issues I've found (it's not comprehensive): Middlesbrough (just make it Redcar town and Cleveland!) Hartlepool takes in most of Billingham but loses northern Hartlepool Billingham split Barnard Castle split Durham City taking in part of Sunderland LA Everything to do with Washington, I can't even describe it.. Chester-le-Street including Lamesley but not Birtley (the latter is actually contiguous) Barnard Castle and Winlaton + High aspen in the same seat 5 seat butchering of Gateshead Winlaton and Blaydon being separate seats despite being one urban area Winlaton + High Spen and Chopwell + Rowlands Gill being separate from Crawcrook + Greenside and Ryton, Crookhill + Stella. These villages are all heavily linked. Dunston Hill and Dunston being in different seats Ponteland split Berwick and Ashington, period. And finally, Tyne Bridge. I'd understand central Gateshead + central Newcastle but why western Gateshead? What links are between these 2 separate sides of the Tyne? Central Newcastle is the only part of Newcastle that has any real links with anywhere in the Gateshead Council area. Overall, what the hell?! OK I had a go at fixing these, think I have managed it apart from Blaydon still follows the A1 over the Tyne. Don't think it creates too many new ones (?) Also keeps the same three seats unchanged.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 14, 2016 17:02:10 GMT
longmonty An infinitely better proposal than the official one. My relatively minor criticisms are that you have split Spennymoor, split Ponteland and (arguably) split Durham by separating Meadowfield (Brandon ward) from the main city. I quite like your split through Middlesbrough (I did east and west) and I might use it for my own plan. I also find your Durham and Peterlee seat intriguing, although I wouldn't be able to use it in my plan without a Tyne Bridge seat which I oppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on Sept 14, 2016 17:20:59 GMT
longmonty An infinitely better proposal than the official one. My relatively minor criticisms are that you have split Spennymoor, split Ponteland and (arguably) split Durham by separating Meadowfield (Brandon ward) from the main city. I quite like your split through Middlesbrough (I did east and west) and I might use it for my own plan. I also find your Durham and Peterlee seat intriguing, although I wouldn't be able to use it in my plan without a Tyne Bridge seat which I oppose. Ponteland is not split - all in Hexam & Cramlington.
Spennymoor can be fixed by leaving Aycliffe in Sedgefield and moving Trudhoe, Ferryhill, Chilton and B.Middleham/Cornforth into B.Auckland instead (personally I don't like that as much, it leaves Sedgefield/Billingham an (even more) strange shape - although it is also marginally less change from current as well as avoiding splitting Spennymoor - so you are probably right that is a better option overall.
I was conscious Brandon would ideally be with Durham but there is at least a small gap between and I couldn't see any way of avoiding the split given the overall scheme.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 14, 2016 17:55:25 GMT
longmonty An infinitely better proposal than the official one. My relatively minor criticisms are that you have split Spennymoor, split Ponteland and (arguably) split Durham by separating Meadowfield (Brandon ward) from the main city. I quite like your split through Middlesbrough (I did east and west) and I might use it for my own plan. I also find your Durham and Peterlee seat intriguing, although I wouldn't be able to use it in my plan without a Tyne Bridge seat which I oppose. Ponteland is not split - all in Hexam & Cramlington.
Spennymoor can be fixed by leaving Aycliffe in Sedgefield and moving Trudhoe, Ferryhill, Chilton and B.Middleham/Cornforth into B.Auckland instead (personally I don't like that as much, it leaves Sedgefield/Billingham an (even more) strange shape - although it is also marginally less change from current as well as avoiding splitting Spennymoor - so you are probably right that is a better option overall.
I was conscious Brandon would ideally be with Durham but there is at least a small gap between and I couldn't see any way of avoiding the split given the overall scheme.
You are of course correct on Ponteland, I often mix up some of the rural north-western Newcastle wards with Ponteland. Agree with you on Spennymoor. I think Durham council, particularly around the area west of the city, could use some ward splitting as they are very thin but wide wards but I know the commission would not allow it. |
|
|
|
Post by krollo on Sept 17, 2016 12:11:27 GMT
The BCE seem to have taken a fairly surrealist approach to the boundaries here, so I think this is one of the areas where a full redraw has a plausible chance of going through. On such a subject, here's my Durham and Cleveland (for the areas further north I'm rather happy with EAL's Hexham/Blaydon plan).  Cleveland is roughly as most other people seem to have approached it. Easington goes with Sunderland South, Sunderland Central remains, Washington and Sunderland West remains in spirit. Bishop Auckland swaps Spennymoor for Crook and Willington, Chester-le-Street goes with Houghton, Durham takes in a few more surrounding areas (including Esh which I'm not quite happy with, but most of the population is at the Durham end). NW Durham is probably my least favourite on this plan; a bit of an odd shape but most of the population is at the north end and the A68 provides a fair link with Tow Law and so on (even if it does go outside the seat). Overall pretty happy with this, though. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 24, 2016 16:02:28 GMT
Have rejigged my proposals as follows:
Billingham & Sedgefield: Billinghams, Northern Parishes, Western Parishes, Aycliffes, Chilton, Ferryhill, Sedgefield, Shildon & Dene Valley; 78006
Easington: Bishop Middleham & Cornforth, Coxhoe, Easington, Horden, Murton, Passfield, Peterlees, Shotton & S Hetton, Spennymoor, Trimdon & Thornley, Tudhoe; 74894
City of Durham: Belmont, Brandon, Coundon, Crook, Deerness, Durham South, Elvet & Gilesgate, Framwellgate & Newton Hall, Nevilles Cross, Sherburn, Tow Law, Willington & Hunwick; 77247
Submitted to Commission.
|
|
