Comment DBCC-7069

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]

Further to the publication of the initial proposals of the Local Government & Democracy Boundary Commissioners for Wales in relation to the sixteen constituencies for the forthcoming Senedd Cymru / Welsh Parliament election. I am writing to comment and counter-propose two alternative pairings of the 32 UK parliamentary constituencies.
As commentators, including yourself, have observed the pairing options hinge on the determinations made in mid-Wales as these decisively impact the options to the South & West.
I concur with the LGDBW’s conclusion that the requirement for contiguous boundaries between paired constituencies makes the determinations along the North Wales coast self-evident. My only contribution here is to suggest some shorter, geographic designations for the proposed twin seats that attempt to avoid any confusion via replication with the UK parliamentary constituencies from which they are built.
In regards Mid & West Wales I feel that road transport links and linguistic and cultural ties make it more appropriate to twin Dwyfor Merionydd to Ceredigion rather than Montgomeryshire. Montgomeryshire in turn twins most naturally with the other seat principally covering Powys; namely Brecon Radnor Cwm Tawe (BRCT). Although the resultant seat is vast & sparse the transport links north-south connecting Welshpool, Newtown, Llandrindod, Builth & Brecon are reasonable and this solution unites the two halves of Powys which probably have more in common with each other than either does with coastal seats in any direction (for example both access district general hospital services in Shrewsbury & Hereford as well as transport links which criss-cross the Anglo-Welsh border). This pairing also facilitates an (in my opinion) more optimal configuration in South and West Wales. The other viable alternative to the LGDBW’s configuration is to leave Dwyfor paired with Montgomeryshire and link BRCT to Monmouthshire (the A40 being the primary road link) with consequent changes to Gwent and the heads of the Valleys pairings. Again, linguistically and culturally these two borderland seats share essential services with England and there are relatively few Welsh first language speakers in either.
In both of my counterproposals the West essentially resolves itself as there is only one contiguous pattern available.
In South Wales transport links are more extensive both East-West (M4, A48, A465 Heads of the Valleys) and North-South from each Valley to the coastal cities. The seats are more compact and urban. The principal dilemma here arises in how one deals with the 3 cities which cover multiple seats with common identities and local transport links; without leaving orphan seats in the Valleys. One has little choice but to separate either Newport East and West or Swansea East and West. The LGDBC choice to twin BRCT with Neath & Swansea East leads to a seat with a highly uneven distribution of population and consequently a centre of gravity in the south to the detriment of the population living in the sparse rural hinterland stretching from Eppynt to the Shropshire border.
Counterproposal One:
 Bangor Aberconwy AND Ynys Mon (proposed name: Menai)
 Clwyd East AND Clwyd North (proposed name: Clwyd)
 Alyn & Deeside AND Wrexham (proposed name: Deeside)
 Brecon Radnor Cwm Tawe AND Glyndwr Montgomeryshire (proposed name: Powys)
 Dwyfor Merionydd AND Ceredigion Presceli (proposed name: Cardigan Bay)
 Carmarthen AND Mid & South Pembrokeshire (proposed name: Dyfed)
 Gower AND Llanelli (proposed name: Loughour)
 Neath & Swansea East AND Swansea West (proposed name: Abertawe Glynneath)
 Bridgend AND Aberavon Maesteg (proposed name: Kenfig Porthcawl)
 Pontypridd AND Rhondda & Ogmore (proposed name: Mid Glamorgan)
 Cardiff South & Penarth AND Vale of Glamorgan (proposed name: South Glamorgan)
 Cardiff North AND Cardiff West (proposed name: Llandaff)
 Cardiff East AND Newport West & Islwyn (proposed name: Gwent Levels)
 Caerphilly AND Merthyr Tydfil & Aberdare (proposed name: Rhymney)
 Blaenau Gwent & Rhymney AND Torfaen (proposed name: Ebbw Vale & Cwmbran)
 Monmouthshire AND Newport East (proposed name: Severnside)
Counterproposal Two:
 Bangor Aberconwy AND Ynys Mon (proposed name: Menai)
 Clwyd East AND Clwyd North (proposed name: Clwyd)
 Alyn & Deeside AND Wrexham (proposed name: Deeside)
 Brecon Radnor Cwm Tawe AND Monmouthshire (proposed name: Wye Valley)
 Dwyfor Merionydd AND Glwyndwr Montgomeryshire (proposed name: In this case there’s no significant geographic feature; but as Machynlleth lies just on the Powys side and the seat contains much of the Yr Wyddfa stronghold of the Princes of Gwynedd I feel “Glyndwr De Gwynedd” is as appropriate as anything)
 Ceredigion Presceli AND Mid & South Pembrokeshire (proposed name: Cardigan)
 Carmathenshire AND Llanelli (proposed name: Ystrad Tywi)
 Gower AND Swansea West (proposed name: Mumbles)
 Aberavon Maesteg AND Rhondda & Ogmore (proposed name: Dyffryn)
 Bridgend AND Vale of Glamorgan (proposed name: South Glamorgan)
 Cardiff South AND Penarth & Cardiff West (proposed name: Taff Ely)
 Cardiff East AND Cardiff North (proposed name: Cardiff Gate)
 Merthyr Tydfil & Aberdare AND Neath & Swansea East (proposed name: Heads of the Valleys West)
 Newport East AND Newport West & Islwyn (proposed name: Ebbw Usk)
 Caerphilly AND Pontypridd (proposed name: Mid Glamorgan)
 Blaenau Gwent & Rhymney AND Torfaen (proposed name: Ebbw Vale & Cwmbran)
I hope the Commission will consider these comments and suggestions in reaching final decisions.
Yours faithfully

[REDACTED]

Respondent type

Member of public

This comment refers to

The entire area under review.