Boundary Commission; the game!

[afleitch]

A game with a difference.

I will be playing the role of the head of the Boundary Commission. I will lay out criteria for fantasy Boundary Reviews and you, the player are to submit recommendations. I will then pull them together and publish a set of recommendations, then the players argue over them. You can argue because of local issues or because you're blindly partisan It's an odd idea, but I think you might have some fun.

So:

Scenario 1.

The North East of England has been granted an Assembly. The terms of the arrangement require representation similar to that enjoyed by Scotland and Wales with constituency seats 'topped-up' with Regions. The Commission has taken a figure of around 55,000 electors per seat to be applicable. The electorate (using 2008 council figures for ease) of the North East is 1,964,892. Divisible by 55000 this gives a theoretical entitlement of 35.73 seats. The Commission has decided to grant the North East 36 constituency seats with an electoral quota of 54,578.

Darlington UA                         79,348 
Hartlepool UA                         69,247 
Middlesbrough UA                101,703 
Redcar and Cleveland UA     105,389 
Stockton-on-Tees UA           141,332 
   
Durham                                395,497 
  Chester-le-Street  42,222 
  Derwentside  71,350 
  Durham  67,545 
  Easington  74,739 
  Sedgefield  68,863 
  Teesdale  20,093 
  Wear Valley  50,685 
   
Northumberland                   246,966  
  Alnwick  24,854 
  Berwick-upon-Tweed 5  21,627 
  Blyth Valley 4  63,995 
  Castle Morpeth  39,368 
  Tynedale  48,431 
  Wansbeck  48,691 
   
Tyne and Wear (Met. County)  825,330                       
  Gateshead  147,111 
  Newcastle upon Tyne  191,955 
  North Tyneside  156,369 
  South Tyneside  116,045 
  Sunderland  213,850 
   

Notes;

The Commission recommends that Durham County be grouped with Darlington to give a quota of 9 (8.7) seats
The Commission recommends that Newcastle upon Tyne be grouped with North Tyneside to give a quota of 6 (6.3) seats
The Commission recommends that Gateshead be grouped with South Tyneside to give a quota of 5 (4. 8 ) seats
The Commission recommends that Sunderland is given a quota of 4 (3.9) seats
The Commission recommends that Northumberland is given a quota of 5 (4.52) seats. The Commission highlights the rural nature of this county.
The Commission recommends that the authorities covering the former county of Cleveland is given a quota of 8 (7.65) seats

The Commission recognises this produced a total of 37 seats; 1 above the recommendation. It will give consideration to any plan to maintain the number of seats at 36.

[minionofmidas]

"Similar to Scotland and Wales"? No. I demand exact same rules, and thus a strict 36, thus clearly demanding that Durham be paired with Northumberland. Al will kill me.

Several options here:

Northumberland, Durham 11.77
Darlington, Stockton, Hartlepool 5.31

Northumberland, Durham, Darlington 13.23
Stockton, Hartlepool 3.86

Or just combine them all. (Either way I'm assuming two seats each for Middlesbrough and Redcar&Cleveland.)

And after the local hearing has shot my trans-Tyne seat down, I'll then be forced to draw another map with an overrepresented Northumberland and Durham/Darlington combined with the ex-Cleveland for 16 seats.

Also, where be ward populations for 2008 council figures?

How many regions and how many topup seats will there be? The law would have been written already before we start to work, so this ought to be public knowledge.

[afleitch]

How many regions and how many topup seats will there be? The law would have been written already before we start to work, so this ought to be public knowledge.

I have that But was keeping it to my chest as thats the last part of the game. There will be 4 regions electing 4 top up seats each.

[minionofmidas]

Also, where be ward populations for 2008 council figures?

Can't really get started without.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al will kill me.

Correct. You have the option of fire or water.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mr Commisioner, sir... those districts in Durham UA and Northumberland UA no longer exist.

Also, where be ward populations for 2008 council figures?

Electorate figures for wards will be on the boundary commission website (they're a little old now, but I think thats all there is that is public).

[minionofmidas]

Mr Commisioner, sir... those districts in Durham UA and Northumberland UA no longer exist.

Also, where be ward populations for 2008 council figures?

Electorate figures for wards will be on the boundary commission website (they're a little old now, but I think thats all there is that is public).

2001 figures, not adding to the totals above. (At least, the ones I found.)

[afleitch]

Mr Commisioner, sir... those districts in Durham UA and Northumberland UA no longer exist.

'I'm sorry; the Commisioner is busy right now. He is currently pre-occupied with another brief. If you would like to address your questions to the Assistant Commisioner who is curently pre-occupied with everything that the Commisioner is not occupied by please leave your message after the tone'

[minionofmidas]

I haven't forgotten about this. But it's impossible to do without precise ward data.

Which means I'll be doing it on 2001 figures.

[minionofmidas]

Correction: I have just found 2006 figures.

The North East of England has been granted an Assembly. The terms of the arrangement require representation similar to that enjoyed by Scotland and Wales with constituency seats 'topped-up' with Regions. The Commission has taken a figure of around 55,000 electors per seat to be applicable. The electorate (using 2006 figures for ease) of the North East is 1,925,171. Divisible by 55000 this gives a theoretical entitlement of 35.003 seats. The Commission has decided to grant the North East 35 constituency seats with an electoral quota of 55,005.

Darlington UA                         77,639
Hartlepool UA                         68,967 
Middlesbrough UA                100,142 
Redcar and Cleveland UA     105,341 
Stockton-on-Tees UA           136,938 
   
Durham                                389,865 
  Chester-le-Street  43,372 
  Derwentside  67,050 
  Durham  68,596 
  Easington  71,662 
  Sedgefield  69,541 
  Teesdale  20,173 
  Wear Valley  49,471 
   
Northumberland                   244,422  
  Alnwick  25,855 
  Berwick-upon-Tweed   21,098 
  Blyth Valley   63,264 
  Castle Morpeth  38,950 
  Tynedale  47,492 
  Wansbeck  47,763 
   
Tyne and Wear (Met. County)  801,857                       
  Gateshead  143,827 
  Newcastle upon Tyne  184,776
  North Tyneside  146,642 
  South Tyneside  114,620 
  Sunderland  211,992 
   

Notes;

Yes, it seems that the official 2006 figures, especially for Newcastle and Gateshead, are a sizable bit below the 2000 figures, and also a decent bit below the 2008 figures. Not sure what happened, exactly. And yes, as the new figures rounded exactly to 35 seats, I took that considerable liberty.

Entitlements:
Northumberland 4.44 (the commission recommends to create 5 seats anyhow)
N Tyneside 2.67
Newcastle 3.36 (pair for 6 seats)
S Tyneside 2.08
Gateshead 2.61 (pair for 5 seats)
Sunderland 3.85 (4 seats)
Durham 7.09 (7 seats)
Darlington 1.41
Hartlepool 1.25
Stockton 2.49 (pair for 5 seats)
Middlesbrough 1.82 (2 seats)
Redcar & Cleveland 1.92 (2 seats)

So... ending up on 36 anyhow. Which will suit as fine.

[minionofmidas]

Tynemouth (or North Shields & Whitley Bay, or even Tynemouth & Whitley Bay if you want to be cute and avoid identical names for non-identical constituencies) 59,103
North Tyneside wards 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20 (or the Westminster constituency except Valley and Chirton wards)
Longbenton & Killingworth 52,253
North Tyneside wards 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 17, 19.
Transferring Collingwood (ward 5) here gives a nicer map but worse population balance (60,460 to 50,896). If it makes sense re local links - can't judge, obviously - I would be open to the transfer. Also open to suggestion regarding the name. This is a successor seat to Westminster's North Tyneside, but excluding all the areas by the Tyne.
Wallsend & Walker 49,950
North Tyneside wards 4, 7, 12, 14, 18 (total electorate 34,873) and Newcastle wards 20 and 21.
People in Wallsend wanted to be paired with East Newcastle rather than the suburbs at the last review. I grant their wish.
Newcastle East 51,393
Remainder of Westminster constituency, plus East Gosforth (ward 7)
Newcastle Central 58,407
The Westminster constituency.
Newcastle North West ("North" is a strange description. The deputy commissioner actually suggested "West") 59,899
The Westminster constituency, minus East Gosforth.

It is possible to tweak these a little and get slightly better balance. For instance, you could move Byker to Wallsend, West Gosforth to East, Fawdon to Central, for electorates of 57,004; 51,703; 58,377; and 52,564 respectively. Taking into account that these Newcastle electorates seem conspicuously low compared to Andrew's 2008 data, you might additionally move Parklands to Longbenton & Killingsworth (59,285, though this'll require keeping Fawdon in West, as the name should in that case be. Electorates for West and Central would then be 52,866 and 51,043. And also keeping Collingsworth in Tynemouth, of course.)

[minionofmidas]

Blaydon (this should probably have some triplebarreled name à la Blaydon, x & y) 53,708
Current constituency except Birtley and Lamesley wards (1 and 12).
Gateshead South West 52,453
Wards 1, 5, 8, 11-14, 17
Gateshead North East 50,985
Gateshead wards 3, 7, 10, 15, 18, 21, South Tyneside wards 4 and 7.
Yes, a classic case of splitting a city and adding some to-be-dominated suburbia at either end. Not sure what else could have been done, though, if Sunderland borough is to stand alone. A propos of nothing, it seems from the map that Birtley ward really belongs in Sunderland rather than Gateshead UA.)
South Shields North & Jarrow 50,749
South Tyneside wards 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
South Shields South 50,552
South Tyneside wards 5, 6, 8, 11, 15-18

Washington 53,375
Sunderland wards 21-25 and 18 for population balance. This one's a bit of no-brainer.
Sunderland North 50,843
wards 2, 5, 6, 11, 16, 20. Apart from ward 6 along the coast, this is the left bank of the Wear. It's also the "new" constituency compared to the new Westminster boundaries - though of course it resembles the abolished constituency of the same name.
Sunderland South 56,890
wards 1, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19. With 25 wards for four constituencies, some disbalance is unavoidable. Again resembles the abolished seat, though this version manages to avoid the North Sea entirely.
Houghton & Ryhope 50,884
wards 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14. Inclusion of Saint Chad's ward (14) is somewhat unfortunate as that appears to be part of Sunderland proper (as does the northern portion of Ryhope ward, but I was inspired by the "old" constituency here).

Almost feel like making the case for including Birtley with Washington now, though the commission wouldn't like it. It would enable me to move ward 18 to Houghton which then could stay out of Sunderland proper (with one ward transferred to north from south, and perhaps also from Gateshead NE to SW). It doesn't improve population balance at all, but it does make for better communities of interest I would think.

[minionofmidas]

Districts (yeah, they've been abolished since. So?) give some obvious suggestions on what to do with Northumberland.

Alnwick & Berwick 46,953
Alnwick, Berwick-upon-Tweed districts (entirely within Berwick-upon-Tweed Westminster constituency)
Wansbeck 47,763
Wansbeck district (entirely within Wansbeck Westminster constituency)
Tynedale 47,492
Tynedale district (entirely within Hexham Westminster constituency)

and that's where the trouble begins. Drawing two constituencies from Blyth Valley and Castle Morpeth requires an unseemly split of Cramlington. Which made me rethink Wansbeck to see if I could avoid splitting towns. It's not perfect, but:
Ashington 48,420
Wansbeck except the three Bedlington wards, Castle Morpeth wards 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 20
Blyth & Bedlington 51,279
Blyth Valley except the seven Cramlington wards; Bedlington
Cramlington, Ponteland & Castle Morpeth 50,278
Castle Morpeth except wards included in Ashington; Cramlington.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'll have a closer look later... but Ellington and Lynemouth really belong with Ashington. Not sure if that helps or not.

[minionofmidas]

I'll have a closer look later... but Ellington and Lynemouth really belong with Ashington. Not sure if that helps or not.

...and that's where they are in my map (Ellington is CM ward 2, Lynemouth is CM ward 7).

[minionofmidas]

Looking for a floor plan for County Durham (excluding Darlington), I thought of two constituencies from Chester-le-Spring and City of Durham (former) districts, one from the urban parts of Derwentside, one vast rural West Durham constituency (remainder of Derwentside, non-Bishop-Auckland parts of Wear Valley, Teesdale), and three in the east.
Let me see how that works out now.


Consett & Stanley (unless you prefer Derwentside?) 56,163
Derwentside except the more rural wards 4, 6, 11, 16 and 18 (if local links suggest Burnside - ward 4 - should be here, then that'll be just fine too. 57,197 in that case.)
West Durham 56,398 (or 55,364)
Remainder of Derwentside, parts of Wear Valley currently in Durham NW, Teesdale
Chester-le-Street 54,186 (or 56,950, see below)
Chester-le-Street district; wards 1 (Bearpark & Witton Gilbert) and 11 (Framwellgate Moor) and either ward 17 (Pittington & West) or wards 14 and 15 (Newton Hall). The latter map (for the higher population) looks far nicer and has better population balance, the former presumably makes more sense (ie Newton Hall is basically a part of Durham proper)?
City of Durham 57,782 (or 55,018)
Remainder
Seaham & Peterlee (in the spirit of different names for different names' sake) 56,993
Easington except wards 2, 13, 19 and 20 (the latter two also excluded from the Westminster constituency)

And two versions for the remainder:
Bishop Auckland (& Spennymoor) 54,546
Westminster constituency except Teesdale; Sedgefield wards 2 and 5
? 52,797
Sedgefield Westminster constituency except Darlington bits; Easington wards 2 and 13. Sedgefield is right in the middle of the constituency but is of course not a particularly sizable place. The constituency is named for the borough which is named for the former rural district. The largest settlement appears to go under three names, Aycliffe, Great Aycliffe and Newton Aycliffe, and is in the far southwestern corner of a constituency that stretches to Dene Mouth.

alternatively:
Bishop Auckland (& Aycliffe) 51,928
? 55,415
This version swaps Spennymoor (Sedgefield wards 2, 5, 8, 9, 14, 17) for Aycliffe (wards 7, 10, 13, 18, 19)

[minionofmidas]

On to the nightmare...

Darlington 56,974
Excludes the four more rural wards currently in Sedgefield, and the three Haughton wards.
Hartlepool 60,425
Really didn't feel like cutting off anything but the two more rural wards (4 and 8 ) and Seaton across the railroad tracks.
Stockton (or Stockton Central) 54,631
Stockton Wards 6, 8-11, 15, 17, 19-21, 23
Thornaby-on-Tees(?) 49,965 (or 53,234)
Stockton South except wards 6, 8, 9 and 11. Not sure if you can really still call this "Stockton South". "Thornaby and Ingleby Barwick"? Latter figure throws in the Darlington ward of Middleton Saint George for slightly better population balance.
Billingham and Haughton 61,549 or 58,280
The vast snakey thing pretty much enforced by that particular combination. The three remaining Hartlepool wards (hugging the town proper on both sides), Billingham and the two western rural wards (16 and 25) off Stockton, the four (or three without Middleton. This reaches all the way around Darlington, too) rural wards and the three Haughton wards of Darlington. Yeah. Stone has nothing on it.

Middlesbrough North 48,116 (or 52,692)
Middlesbrough constituency except wards 1, 4, 5, and 10. If it makes as much sense re ties etc as it makes re map prettyness, transfer the Park End ward (20) in.
Middlesbrough South 52,026 (or 47,450)
Remainder of the UA
Redcar (or Redcar & whatever those urbanized areas just outside of Middlesbrough are called) 56,882
The Redcar constituency minus Marske (wards 11 and 15)
East Cleveland 48,459
Remainder.
Better population balance is easily achieved - I've found at least five different "better" maps -  but the problem is that the areas just east of Middlesbrough; Redcar proper plus Marske; and the more rural/suburban eastern parts have about one third of the population each, and no matter which part you cut up it isn't pretty. At all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Putting Teesdale and Weardale in the same seat would almost certainly get shot down at the inquiry, fwiw. Will make more comments later; have a few things to do now...

I'll have a closer look later... but Ellington and Lynemouth really belong with Ashington. Not sure if that helps or not.

...and that's where they are in my map (Ellington is CM ward 2, Lynemouth is CM ward 7).

Oh, right. I were only skim-reading. A good decision, then; I really don't understand why they were added to Berwick in 1983. If you want to be really crazy, you could add Amble into your Morpeth seat.

[minionofmidas]

Putting Teesdale and Weardale in the same seat would almost certainly get shot down at the inquiry, fwiw.

Interesting, why? Complete lack of communication links? Some kind of rivalry?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, take your time. You basically play the people at the local enquiry in this role-playing game.

Amble wouldn't fit into that Castle Morpeth district at all - it doesn't have any seashore, you see. (If anything I could put it into Ashington, transfer some other parts of Wansbeck to the Morpeth etc seat, and some rural parts on that constituency's west side into Alnwick & Berwick. I'd have to do the math, but I'm skeptical right now.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting, why? Complete lack of communication links? Some kind of rivalry?

Mostly the former. The area in between the two dales happens to be one of the bleakest* parts of the North Pennines. There are a couple of lanes going over and a small b road (that is, or at least used to be, usually closed in the winter) and none of them are in a great state. The main way to go from one to the other is through West Auckland.

Other things... the main population centre (if you can call it that) of the old Teesdale district is Barnard Castle, a town that looks more to Richmond and Catterick than to Crook or Willington. Also, part of the Teesdale (the south bank) used to be in the North Riding, which adds a whole heap of other issues...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I shall have to add some totally unreasonable partisan complaints here and there then

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did say it was a crazy solution

*Though beautiful if you like that kind of thing. As I do.

[minionofmidas]

Other things... the main population centre (if you can call it that) of the old Teesdale district is Barnard Castle, a town that looks more to Richmond and Catterick than to Crook or Willington. Also, part of the Teesdale (the south bank) used to be in the North Riding, which adds a whole heap of other issues...


I shall have to add some totally unreasonable partisan complaints here and there then

Like having the Teesdale excluded from the Northeast assembly entirely, or be granted its own seat?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Other things... the main population centre (if you can call it that) of the old Teesdale district is Barnard Castle, a town that looks more to Richmond and Catterick than to Crook or Willington. Also, part of the Teesdale (the south bank) used to be in the North Riding, which adds a whole heap of other issues...


I shall have to add some totally unreasonable partisan complaints here and there then

Like having the Teesdale excluded from the Northeast assembly entirely, or be granted its own seat?

lol

If it helps, Barnard Castle also looks to Bishop. You could also link it to the area around Darlington; would hardly be ideal, but better than linking it with Weardale.

[afleitch]

On a downtime day I'll get some maps for this whipped up

[minionofmidas]

Other things... the main population centre (if you can call it that) of the old Teesdale district is Barnard Castle, a town that looks more to Richmond and Catterick than to Crook or Willington. Also, part of the Teesdale (the south bank) used to be in the North Riding, which adds a whole heap of other issues...


I shall have to add some totally unreasonable partisan complaints here and there then

Like having the Teesdale excluded from the Northeast assembly entirely, or be granted its own seat?

lol

If it helps, Barnard Castle also looks to Bishop.

Yeah, that would be the only alternative on where to put it. The problem lies in what else to put with the northwesterly areas in its stead. It's probably forcing me to split up Durham town.
(Mind you, this is exactly the kind of issue someone not familiar with the area is going to miss, and that I need comment for.)

[minionofmidas]

I've taken another look at that. While a Bishop & Teesdale district works well in and of itself - you exclude the Sedgefield areas but include Willingdon - it creates trouble everwhere else. You can either have
a) a somewhat reduced Durham NW; a Stanley & Chester W seat, a Durham N & Chester E seat, and a Durham S & Rural Parts to the Southeast seat (and a Spennymoor/Newton Aycliffe based seat)
or
b) a Consett & Stanley and Chester-le-Street broadly as described above, a Durham W & Weardale seat and a Durham E & Rural Parts to the Southeast seat
c) or perhaps you could tweak the figures to create an All The Empty Bits of County Durham Except Teesdale monster and a somewhat redrawn Durham town seat.

Is it really worth it?
Maybe you could mollify people by putting West Auckland (and the road link) in the West Durham seat; that ought to be possible?