|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 27, 2012 8:17:15 GMT
Yes, the consultation does show a worryingly large proportion of people who either a) didn't understand what the consultation was about or b) are obvious lunatics. Or in quite a lot of cases both. There are also a lot of complaints about property prices and having to share a constituency with undesirables if you look in the right place.Sutton Coldfield?  |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 27, 2012 8:20:31 GMT
There also seem to be about 80 responses at points on the map from non-British locations that on examination turn out to be from England after all. I think I prefer the map with responses from Tunis and Stettin, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Mar 27, 2012 9:33:48 GMT
There also seem to be about 80 responses at points on the map from non-British locations that on examination turn out to be from England after all. I think I prefer the map with responses from Tunis and Stettin, though. Yes, there are a few invalid post codes and some that don't appear to be on Google's database. Most of these get resolved to a road number, like the one on the N30 in Co. Wexford. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,861 
|
Post by Crimson King on Mar 27, 2012 13:29:56 GMT
There also seem to be about 80 responses at points on the map from non-British locations that on examination turn out to be from England after all. I think I prefer the map with responses from Tunis and Stettin, though. Yes, there are a few invalid post codes and some that don't appear to be on Google's database. Most of these get resolved to a road number, like the one on the N30 in Co. Wexford. I thought Tunis was in the New Mersey Banks |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 27, 2012 15:13:57 GMT
;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 15:29:32 GMT
the Map is interesting in that I did a verbal one and not on there !!
and I note with interest the Sutton cluster, just seen one person in favour of the Sutton decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 15:29:58 GMT
I've been having a play, forgive me If our proposals for Darwen and Accrington are accepted (and why would they not?), would it be possible for the Tories proposals to be 'fitted' around? Erm...No, or not as far as I can see. Here's the map: To the south are "Darwen, Oswaldtwistle and Accrington" and "Rossendale and Ramsbottom", as we propose, and then....because both us and the Tories want to put Great Harwood into Ribble Valley, the knock-on effects mean things are very tight in Burnley and Pendle.  |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 27, 2012 15:37:55 GMT
If our proposals for Darwen and Accrington are accepted (and why would they not?), would it be possible for the Tories proposals to be 'fitted' around? Erm...No, or not as far as I can see. Oh dear.  Well, in that case I guess the Commission will just have to accept the Tory proposals wholesale, and avoid all this Valleys of Ribble and Lune nonsense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 15:49:06 GMT
 One of my favourite quotes from the public meetings I couldn't get to has to come from a Morecambe councillor who brushed aside the Valleys seat with "...might as well called it 'Misnomer North West'" Harsh, man, harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 27, 2012 16:50:54 GMT
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,915
|
Post by Tony Otim on Mar 27, 2012 20:50:05 GMT
Oh no, don't get Boogie started on being fair  |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 27, 2012 22:20:12 GMT
If our proposals for Darwen and Accrington are accepted (and why would they not?), would it be possible for the Tories proposals to be 'fitted' around? Erm...No, or not as far as I can see. Oh dear. Well, in that case I guess the Commission will just have to accept the Tory proposals wholesale, and avoid all this Valleys of Ribble and Lune nonsense. Nonsense. They'll have to go for my proposals instead, and avoid all this Valleys of Ribble and Lune nonsense... |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Mar 28, 2012 6:57:32 GMT
Do any of you in the NW have a feeling for the Assistant Commissioner's view on splitting wards? It's probably the region where there's the strongest case for doing so, given the mess the non-splitting proposals make of north-west Cheshire.
In Yorkshire, where I think there's also a pretty strong case (otherwise we're stuck with Barnsley West & Ecclesfield and some real mess in Leeds, the details of which depend on whose proposal is adopted), the AC seems reasonably open to the idea from the transcripts, but the parties don't seem keen in general. The Tories are clearly against, the LDs avoided split wards in their proposal but possibly only because it's Commission policy, and national Labour are against, though the ward-splitting counterproposal for West Yorkshire is from a Labour member and clearly has some support within the party.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 28, 2012 9:52:08 GMT
There also seem to be about 80 responses at points on the map from non-British locations that on examination turn out to be from England after all. I think I prefer the map with responses from Tunis and Stettin, though. Yes, there are a few invalid post codes and some that don't appear to be on Google's database. Most of these get resolved to a road number, like the one on the N30 in Co. Wexford. Joking about submissions from Timbuktu aside, can I say that this is the best thing in the entire world right now, better even than tea and sex, and everyone is very grateful for this wonderful new toy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 29, 2012 21:06:22 GMT
I did a critique of the Labour proposals for northern Greater Manchester in reply 6 of this thread, so it's only fair I critique the other parties.
Tories:
BURY SOUTH: unchanged.
OK.
BURY NORTH: as per Commission including Bradshaw ward.
This is pretty much naked self-interest - there can be no other reason for supporting that barmy Commission proposal. Bury North is a marginal seat and the Tories want their majority shoring up with lots of Tory voters from Bradshaw.
BOLTON NORTH: Bromley Cross, Astley Bridge, Crompton, Halliwell, Smithills, Heaton and Lostock, Horwich.
Now this is an improvement on the Commission's Bolton North/South split in that the two Horwich wards are kept together. This would be quite a workable seat.
BOLTON SOUTH: Breightmet, Tonge with The Hoff, Gt Lever, Rumworth, Little Lever, Farnworth, Harper Green, Kearsley.
Again, an improvement on the Commission. Tonge and Breightmet need keeping together in the same constituency. Again, this would be quite workable and pretty easy to represent.
Now, the wild card:
WALKDEN AND WESTHOUGHTON: Westhoughton, Atherton, (Over) Hulton, Lickle Hulton, Walkden, Boothstown.
Bit of an amorphous mass and much of a muchness, this one. The surprise is that Worsley is in a different seat (Swinton and Eccles) to Walkden and Boothstown, which is a rather fine split to put it mildly.
Overall conclusion: good Bolton seats let down by a dubious Walkden/Westhoughton and a poor Bury North. Marks: 6 out of 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 29, 2012 22:33:19 GMT
Lib Dems. Since Tricky basically based his Greater Manchester on my proposals from the old forum you won't be surprised to find I like this.
The Lib Dem counter-proposal differs from mine in that they move Sedgley ward (Prestwich) into Blackley and Broughton in order to avoid splitting wards, and have only one cross-county seat. Moving Sedgley into a Manchester seat is reasonable - it's probably the least suburban of the three Prestwich wards and the communication links are good, including the Metrolink Bury branch.
ROSSENDALE AND RAMSBOTTOM: Rossendale (minus Goodshaw and Worsley wards, ie Haslingden), Rammy, North Manor, Totty, Elton.
Modified from my version which included Haslingden instead of Elton. I still think that's a better idea overall.
BURY AND PRESTWICH: Moorside, East, Church, Redvales, Unsworth, Besses, Holywood, Pilkington Park, St Mary's.
Not quite as neat as my seat, which had Sedgley and southern Radcliffe West rather than Church.
RADCLIFFE AND FARNWORTH: Farnworth, Harper Green, Hulton, Rumworth, Kearsley, Radcliffe.
On the other hand, this is much neater than my version, which didn't include southern Radcliffe West and had two wards of Bury in it. However, there is one caveat, for which I will introduce the next seat:
BOLTON NORTH EAST: Astley Bridge, Bradshaw, Breightmet, Bromley Cross, Crompton, Tonge with The Hoff, Gt Lever, Lt Lever.
There are two wards in these seats which are in the wrong place. Rumworth ward is an integral part of Bolton and should be in Bolton North East (which might then be better off renamed as Bolton East). Little Lever is an independent town and would be better off in Radcliffe/Farnworth - the main road between the two passes through Little Lever.
BOLTON WEST: current seat plus Halliwell.
Same as Labour and a very reasonable idea.
Overall, excellent. If my Greater Manchester doesn't get adopted I hope this version does. Marks out of 10: 8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 7:13:33 GMT
From the Scottish Boundary Commission
WHOOPS
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 30, 2012 10:56:18 GMT
So for Bury you support a plan that carves up the current seats in Bury and parcels out the borough to four seats, over one that keeps Bury South no change and only adds one ward to Bury North?
It pains me that nobody in this country seems to have read Rule 5.1.b and 5.1.c.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 30, 2012 18:11:49 GMT
So for Bury you support a plan that carves up the current seats in Bury and parcels out the borough to four seats, over one that keeps Bury South no change and only adds one ward to Bury North? It pains me that nobody in this country seems to have read Rule 5.1.b and 5.1.c. Yes, I do. I submitted a very similar proposal to the Commission myself (albeit one that involved only three constituencies in Bury borough by splitting a ward in Radcliffe). The arithmetic is such that the Bury and Bolton area has to go down from the current 5 seats to 4 and a half with one constituency crossing the Lancashire boundary. The only seat that could be kept unchanged is Bury South, but this involves adding Bradshaw ward to Bury North which is a breach of Rule 5(1)(d) - local ties. I don't support this idea because there are no local ties between Bradshaw and Bury. That implies that Bury South, in its current form, has to go. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Mar 30, 2012 20:06:49 GMT
In the light of what happened yesterday, here's the fate of the wards in the current Bradford West in the main counterproposals that I've seen:
The Lib Dems have a Bradford Central seat containing four of the wards in the current constituency (City, Manningham, Toller, Clayton/Fairweather Green) with Great Horton, Little Horton and Wibsey added. The other two wards, Thornton/Allerton and Heaton, go into their Guiseley & Shipley seat with Bingley, Bingley Rural, Shipley, and the obvious Leeds ward.
The Tories have a Bradford West which differs from the Lib Dems' Central only in its name. They also add the other two wards to Shipley, which compared with the Lib Dems' version doesn't include Guiseley and does include Baildon and Windhill/Wrose.
Shipley CLP have a Shipley & Bradford North which includes Manningham, Toller and Heaton from the current seat together with Baildon, Bingley, Shipley and Windhill/Wrose. The other three wards go into a Bradford South with Bowling/Barkerend, Great Horton, Little Horton and Wibsey.
Dan Howard (Kirklees Labour) has a Bradford Central which is the existing West minus Heaton, plus Little Horton, Bolton/Undercliffe and part of Eccleshill. Heaton goes into Shipley & Bradford North with Baildon, Bingley, Idle/Thackley, Shipley, Wharfedale, Windhill/Wrose and another part of Eccleshill.
|
|
Well, in that case I guess the Commission will just have to accept the Tory proposals wholesale, and avoid all this Valleys of Ribble and Lune nonsense.
