|
|
Post by afleitch on Sept 26, 2016 19:24:04 GMT
This is my own tidy up of the North East  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 31, 2016 11:12:46 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan)  |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 31, 2016 12:03:55 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan) Anything would be better than the BCE proposals |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 31, 2016 16:04:09 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan) It looks like it both: doesn't cross the river, and: minimises seats spreading between council areas. That model is essentially the four council areas (five counting Stockton as two - and we all know Stockton-in-Yorkshire should really be part of Middlesbrough). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 31, 2016 21:31:54 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan) I'm not a fan. The advantage your plan has is that it doesn't cross the Tees. I think this is outweighed by splitting Hartlepool, splitting Billingham and by dividing the Greater Eston area. I still think the better option is to give Hartlepool a Durham ward, put Billingham in with Sedgefield, put Yarm into Stockton and then assign three seats to the rest of Teesside. It does cross the Tees, but you've still got a strong boundary along the River Leven and everything else works. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 31, 2016 22:35:59 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan) I'm not a fan. The advantage your plan has is that it doesn't cross the Tees. I think this is outweighed by splitting Hartlepool, splitting Billingham and by dividing the Greater Eston area. I still think the better option is to give Hartlepool a Durham ward, put Billingham in with Sedgefield, put Yarm into Stockton and then assign three seats to the rest of Teesside. It does cross the Tees, but you've still got a strong boundary along the River Leven and everything else works. I agree East Anglian Lefty but it is still better than the BCE |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 31, 2016 22:53:49 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan) I'm not a fan. The advantage your plan has is that it doesn't cross the Tees. I think this is outweighed by splitting Hartlepool, splitting Billingham and by dividing the Greater Eston area. I still think the better option is to give Hartlepool a Durham ward, put Billingham in with Sedgefield, put Yarm into Stockton and then assign three seats to the rest of Teesside. It does cross the Tees, but you've still got a strong boundary along the River Leven and everything else works. I have done something similar (although I have put Yarm into Middlesbrough West instead): greensocialistalan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/my-alternative-constituencies.html |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 1, 2016 3:12:50 GMT
A slightly more sensible arrangement of the four Teeside seats IMO (Hartlepool is as per BCE plan) I'm not a fan. The advantage your plan has is that it doesn't cross the Tees. I think this is outweighed by splitting Hartlepool, splitting Billingham and by dividing the Greater Eston area. I still think the better option is to give Hartlepool a Durham ward, put Billingham in with Sedgefield, put Yarm into Stockton and then assign three seats to the rest of Teesside. It does cross the Tees, but you've still got a strong boundary along the River Leven and everything else works. The Hartlepool boundaries are exactly as per the BCE plans - I have only changed the four seats covering Cleveland.Middlesbrough/Stockton, so I plead not-guilty there. I don't see how improving the boundaries in one area (an advantage) can be outweighed by making no changes in another - that would require me to make things worse. (fwiw I posted a plan some months ago which did go for adding a Durham ward to Hartlepool vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/6889/2018-review-north-east-england?page=2)As far as splitting Eston goes that is a necessary but fairly minor evil if you do avoid crossing the Tees - the only alternative is to put Nunthorpe in the Cleveland seat which makes even less sense (and the 'greater Eston area' is also split on the BCE plan, so this cannot be a disadvantage relative to their plan). My objective here was to sort out the mess in Middlesbrough - the quite unnecessary creation of two seats covering parts of that borough and Cleveland & Redcar and the splitting of Stockton town. In fact the last issue can be easily dealt with within the framework of the BCE plan by swapping Yarm for the two wards in Stockton proper and it's a mystery why they haven't done that |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 1, 2016 3:39:37 GMT
One way to address some of these concerns is to keep Yarm with the Stockton seat enabling the boundaries of the three South Tees seats to move eastwards. Therefore Eston ward would join int's neighbourhood in Middlesbrough East with one ward (doesn't matter which) moving from there to West. This would also mean that Billingham West would have to move out of Stockton to be reunited with the rest of that town, but of course while that is in Hartlepool this means yet another Hartlepool ward would have to move out to make room for it.
I can see that linking Billingham with Sedgefield is a good way to avoid all these problems but then this is going to necessitate serious knock-on changes to the other seats in County Durham (and on into Tyne & Wear). This isn't a bad thing of itself (some of those seats in Durham are fucking awful) but for my part I'm limiting myself in areas like this* to making changes in small self-contained areas in order to clean up some of the worst messes created in the initial plans (such as those involving Middlesbrough here)
* by which I mean regions like this one and the North West where I don't have a strong personal interest
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 1, 2016 21:20:07 GMT
I'm not a fan. The advantage your plan has is that it doesn't cross the Tees. I think this is outweighed by splitting Hartlepool, splitting Billingham and by dividing the Greater Eston area. I still think the better option is to give Hartlepool a Durham ward, put Billingham in with Sedgefield, put Yarm into Stockton and then assign three seats to the rest of Teesside. It does cross the Tees, but you've still got a strong boundary along the River Leven and everything else works. The Hartlepool boundaries are exactly as per the BCE plans - I have only changed the four seats covering Cleveland.Middlesbrough/Stockton, so I plead not-guilty there. I don't see how improving the boundaries in one area (an advantage) can be outweighed by making no changes in another - that would require me to make things worse. (fwiw I posted a plan some months ago which did go for adding a Durham ward to Hartlepool vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/6889/2018-review-north-east-england?page=2)As far as splitting Eston goes that is a necessary but fairly minor evil if you do avoid crossing the Tees - the only alternative is to put Nunthorpe in the Cleveland seat which makes even less sense (and the 'greater Eston area' is also split on the BCE plan, so this cannot be a disadvantage relative to their plan). My objective here was to sort out the mess in Middlesbrough - the quite unnecessary creation of two seats covering parts of that borough and Cleveland & Redcar and the splitting of Stockton town. In fact the last issue can be easily dealt with within the framework of the BCE plan by swapping Yarm for the two wards in Stockton proper and it's a mystery why they haven't done that It's an improvement on the BCE plan, but that's because the BCE plan is beyond terrible. My complaint isn't that it isn't an improvement, it's that it's not improvement enough, because I can't see the Initial Proposals really surviving in any recognisable form. Particularly because your scheme could be considerably nicer around the edges with a little more flexibility around electorates, which moving Yarm gives you. It's then more or less a question of taste whether you do a minimum change Redcar (fewer electors moved) or whether you put it in with Cleveland and pair Eston with eastern Middlesborough (looks more natural on a map). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 2, 2016 19:39:47 GMT
I've been preparing my response for the North East. I'm not going to bother posting the maps here, because north of the Tyne it's exactly the same as I've already posted here and south of the Tyne it's only very lightly altered. But in my written submission I placed a great deal of importance on not splitting towns, so it got to me to thinking about Gateshead, which I do propose splitting. Gateshead proper is more or less the right size for a constituency, but I don't think anybody has proposed a full scheme which doesn't split it. So I put my mind to working out how you could keep it whole without causing too much damage elsewhere. The map below is my best effort. I've assumed the five Blaydon area wards go with Northumberland or Newcastle, that Darlington becomes co-extensive with the unitary and that the area east of the Tees less Yarm gets three seats.  Gateshead (74533) Washington & Whickham (74785) Sunderland North & Hebburn (72400) South Shields & Jarrow (75930) Sunderland Central (78115) Houghton & Seaham (73899) North Durham (77303) North West Durham (73830) Auckland & Aycliffe (75457) City of Durham (77539) Hartlepool North & Peterlee (75213) Hartlepool South & Billingham (73496) Stockton-on-Tees (75818) I think this might score quite well on minimum change grounds, but a lot of the drawbacks are obvious. Sunderland & Hebburn North is effectively a doughnut seat, and a particularly poor example of that (and the alternative, splitting South Shields, isn't an improvement.) Splitting Hartlepool cancels out keeping Gateshead whole (and the only way I've found to avoid splitting Hartlepool is pairing Easington with Billingham via Trimdon in what's effectively an earmuffs seat. Sherburn is ugly in North Durham and in fact Durham is cut away from a lot of its hinterland. So I won't be proposing this, but it was an interesting exercise in testing my (correct, I think) assumption that it wasn't worth keeping Gateshead whole. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 2, 2016 20:55:36 GMT
What you call "Gateshead proper" - which has traditionally been the area covered by Gateshead constituencies - is actually Gateshead and Felling, and I think it's not too serious that most people's proposals have Whickham, not Felling, in the new Gateshead seat.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 6, 2016 12:16:18 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Nov 16, 2016 7:31:09 GMT
Any news from the Newcastle hearing?
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Nov 16, 2016 11:02:48 GMT
Any news from the Newcastle hearing? Made my presentation on Monday afternoon. Seemed to go down well. Gave details to Tories, Lib Dems & Greens. Didn't see anyone from Labour I recognised apart from Jarrow CLP who have a particular problem with Rekendyke & Simonside (they don't want it). UKIP Sunderland also there. Anne Marie Trevelyan preceded me & also wanted a Berwick & Morpeth, not surprisingly. Also gentleman who opposed splitting of Ponteland. There was reference to other schemes received. That's all I know as I didn't hang around. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Feb 28, 2017 20:56:09 GMT
Just reading the Tory & Labour proposals. Tories want to preserve boundaries of Northumberland, which leads to some strange results. Naturally, they want a "Berwick and Morpeth" and a "Blyth and Ashington". Labour supports the Commission's Berwick & Ashington, including the division of Ponteland. Both support a cross-river Blaydon, rather than a restored Tyne Bridge, quite wrongly in my view. Both support the division of Hartlepool, again wrongly in my view. Both introduce new "orphan" wards.
More later!
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Mar 10, 2017 13:05:00 GMT
Nearly finished my comments on the Tory and Lib Dem proposals. I will alter my Tyne Bridge to include Ouseburn, so uniting all the central Quayside area. Also, I will alter my Redcar and Middlesbrough South & E Cleveland following complete lack of support, including MPs who I thought might support minimum change.
I am astonished that Tories, Labour & LibDems are all accepting the ridiculous division of Blaydon/Winlaton. It can't happen, can it?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 10, 2017 15:11:31 GMT
La Fontaine, the problem is that Newcastle-upon-Tyne is only large enough for 2 1/2 seats under the 2018 Boundary Review parameters on 2015 figures. Taking some wards from Northumberland does not help since Northumberland is entitled to 3.13 seats and none of the wards in Northumberland are attached to the city of Newcastle in any recognisable way. So the recreation of a 'Tyne Bridge constituency' is unfortunately necessary, but avoiding the division of Blaydon should be possible.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Mar 12, 2017 9:31:23 GMT
I am astonished that Tories, Labour & LibDems are all accepting the ridiculous division of Blaydon/Winlaton. It can't happen, can it? Sometimes I get the impression that the political parties pay too much deference to the initial proposals. See also Derby where they all seem to be accepting the weird and unnecessary inclusion of a ward from outside the city in one of the Derby constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Mar 12, 2017 10:01:05 GMT
La Fontaine , the problem is that Newcastle-upon-Tyne is only large enough for 2 1/2 seats under the 2018 Boundary Review parameters on 2015 figures. Taking some wards from Northumberland does not help since Northumberland is entitled to 3.13 seats and none of the wards in Northumberland are attached to the city of Newcastle in any recognisable way. So the recreation of a 'Tyne Bridge constituency' is unfortunately necessary, but avoiding the division of Blaydon should be possible. Indeed, I think recreating Tyne Bridge is very much preferable to a cross-river Blaydon. The the official Green Party submission agrees, as I have noted in my comments on the Conservatives' proposals, which I have now submitted. |
|
