Boundaries Archive

[Deleted]

I've been playing around again, forgive me

This map shows the LibDem proposals for Wyre and Preston North, and Preston South, which the Commission will almost certainly choose.

If the criticism about our northern seats are accepted at the same time - and why would they? But let's continue this fantasy world for the purposes of this post - Morecambe and Lunesdale would be accepted too:




To try and fill in the middle bit, as well as having one mind on consequences elsewhere, I tried to attach Lancaster to somewhere else, but the only solution is to go as far east as Clitheroe, as this map shows ("Lancaster and Ribble Valley" ? "Clitheroe and Lancaster"?)




The obvious solution to this problem is for the Commission to accept our counter proposals in full.

[septimus]

This is my first post here so I'd better introduce myself.

I live in Australia but I was born in the UK and take a keen interest in British politics. My leanings are pro Labour (or Labor as we in Australia have it for some reason). I find discussion of electoral boundaries particularly interesting and have followed the discussion of the proposed UK boundary changes with interest. My understanding of the political geography of most of the UK comes solely from looking at maps and past electoral results so feel free to take these comments as the rantings of an uninformed observer.

Despite my sympathies, I think there's a lot to like about the Lib Dem submission for the NW region. In particular, I think their Wirral and West Cheshire boundaries are very good and they make a very strong argument for splitting a ward in this area, their boundaries through Greater Manchester look like a great improvement on the Commission's proposals and their proposal to link Southport with adjacent areas in Lancshire looks good.

There do seem to be some areas that look less than ideal though.

The first suggestion I would make would be to swap Goodshaw ward in Rossendale with North Turton ward in Blackburn. The former looks to have better connections with Rawtenstall, and the latter with Darwen.

My second concern is the inclusion of the 4 Hyndburn wards in Valleys of Ribble and Lune, without including Clitheroe. To my mind it makes the constituency look very unwieldy. I think they would be better placed with Burnley, while adding Clitheroe and the rest of Ribble Valley to the Valleys seat and putting a couple of Burnley wards in Pendle.

The third thing that caught my eye was the splitting of Skelmersdale from the adjacent wards to its east. Those wards look like they should all be placed together, so I tried experimenting with different configurations to see if that could be made to work. I think it can, although it would lead to some substantial redrawing of several other seats.

First, Manor ward would be placed into Maghull and Kirkby, which would lose Cherryfield to Liverpool Walton, while St Helens South would keep Prescot East. Otherwise Mersyside can stay as suggested.

West Lancashire would also have to lose Rufford, Newburgh and Up Holland wards in addition to Parbold and Wrightington. Rufford can be accomodated in Southport, but the others would have to go to Mid Lancashire or Chorley. I think it would be easier to put them in Chorley, which would also have to keep the western wards of Chorley district, which the LDs proposed to put in Mid Lancashire. Mid Lancashire then reverts to South Ribble, containing the whole district apart from Samlesbury and Coupe Green wards.

This obviously has knock on effects in North Lancashire, with Preston staying in Preston proper, similar to the Commission's proposal but with Fishwick included and one northern urban ward left out. I don't think it matters at this stage whether Morecambe and Lancaster are combined or not. Ribble Valley would include the entire Ribble Valley district plus Colne. Burnley would have to be split - part with Nelson and part with Accrington. Ramsbottom and Rawtenstall would be as suggested, subject to the change I mentioned earlier.

There would then be a seat centred on Darwen, but including some of Hyndburn, Worsley ward from Rossendale, the 3 north eastern wards of Chorley, the last 2 wards of South Ribble, and the Bradshaw and Bromley Cross wards from Bolton.

To make up for the loss of those wards, Bolton North East would pick up Halliwell and Rumworth, Bolton West would take in the 2 south eastern wards of Chorley, Radcliffe and Farnworth would add Pilkington Park, and Bury South would keep Sedgeley.

Blackley and Broughton, Salford and Eccles, and Worsley and Eccles South could then remain unchanged, while Stretford and Urmston would be as proposed by the Commission. Atrincham and Sale could then make up the required numbers by including Lymm from Warrington. It would then be possible to realign the wards in Warrington and Halton into 3 seats, one based on each of Widnes, Runcorn and Warrington.

I've no idea what the political ramifications of this would be, and I suspect the fact that the Darwen-based seat included parts of no less than 6 districts would make it unviable, although Darwen seems to be an awkward area to match up with anything else. In any case, I'd be interested in seeing other people's thoughts.

[Deleted]

Wow. Septimus, welcome to the Forum and thank you for that critique!

I understand exactly about some of the specific issues with our proposals in Lancashire (after all, I came up with some of them!). There are points where they could be improved, but given the domino effect, as I am sure you appreciate, shifting something in Pendle can cause an issue in Blackpool.

With specific reference to our seats West Lancashire, and Mid Lancashire, you need not tell me about Skelmersdale. I tried numerous configurations only for numbers and geography to conspire against me. I took the view that involving Chorley would be too much like hard work, but felt Up Holland could be more naturally retained with its West Lancashire neighbours.

I really like what you've done to South Ribble, though.

I hope you stay around the forum for longer, you might just fit in pretty well round here

[andrewteale]

Likewise, welcome to the Forum, Septimus.

To be honest it's not just that Darwen is an awkward area to match up with anything else, it's that nowhere else wants to be associated with the place. Your Darwen seat is rather similar to the one I submitted to the Commission.

In Bolton/Bury (which is my area) your changes are very reasonable. Bradshaw and Bromley Cross have been in a Darwen seat before; Adlington and Rivington have been in the predecessor to Bolton West before; I agree that Rumworth should be in the Lib Dems' Bolton North East.

Personally I agree it's desirable that the Prestwich wards should be kept together, but moving Pilkington Park into Radcliffe/Farnworth does this at the expense of splitting Whitefield.

Nonetheless, an excellent post and worthy of an Exalt.

[stepney]

Apr 2, 2012 8:07:25 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

To try and fill in the middle bit, as well as having one mind on consequences elsewhere, I tried to attach Lancaster to somewhere else, but the only solution is to go as far east as Clitheroe, as this map shows ("Lancaster and Ribble Valley" ? "Clitheroe and Lancaster"?)

This is about as close as you can get to trolling while (a) talking knowledgably about a completely arcane subject and (b) coming across as quite quite serious.

Apr 2, 2012 8:07:25 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

This map shows the LibDem proposals for Wyre and Preston North, and Preston South, which the Commission will almost certainly choose.

If the criticism about our northern seats are accepted at the same time - and why would they?

...

The obvious solution to this problem is for the Commission to accept our counter proposals in full.

Ah, not so serious after all then.

[tricky]

I've just finished the secondary submission for the Lib Dems for the NW.

I basked in the adoration of the public for our proposals in western Cheshire and spent some time praising the work of Mr Teale.

To answer the earlier question about where the AC stands on splitting just take a look at our little tiff at the Manchester hearing.

[Deleted]

Apr 2, 2012 20:11:29 GMT stepney said:

Apr 2, 2012 8:07:25 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

To try and fill in the middle bit, as well as having one mind on consequences elsewhere, I tried to attach Lancaster to somewhere else, but the only solution is to go as far east as Clitheroe, as this map shows ("Lancaster and Ribble Valley" ? "Clitheroe and Lancaster"?)

This is about as close as you can get to trolling while (a) talking knowledgably about a completely arcane subject and (b) coming across as quite quite serious.

Apr 2, 2012 8:07:25 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

This map shows the LibDem proposals for Wyre and Preston North, and Preston South, which the Commission will almost certainly choose.

If the criticism about our northern seats are accepted at the same time - and why would they?

...

The obvious solution to this problem is for the Commission to accept our counter proposals in full.

Ah, not so serious after all then.

Stepney - I am as serious as the subject matter allows me to be. We all worked together on our proposals for the NW and I am very proud of the proposals as a whole.

The Commission may decide to only tinker with one or two wards. They may decide to not change anything at all. Or change everything! Then MPs may decide to not vote through the changes making this entire exercise a whole lot of expensive flim-flam.

Whatever happens, I'll be batting for our team

[Tony Otim]

Welcome back, Tricky! We've missed you.

[Deleted]

on this consultation exercise how do the number of responses contrast to previous ones. My guess is that the number of replies are massively up.

My other guess apart in one or two examples that things will be left in the mess they are now.

[Deleted]

It's hard to quantify because of the nature of this review and the difference to the others. I'd wager that the total numbers will be about the same overall (though seats like Sutton Coldfield or Salford were not subject to such radical alterations then so obviously there's a spike in responses this time)

As I've said on here and elsewhere, my gut feeling is the Commission will only tinker where there's a clear consensus to do so. There won't be wholesale changes.

[Deleted]

yep, our CLP is already thinking of sticking with the same boundaries as allocated.

[Deleted]

It's worth noting that the deadline for sending responses closes in about 40 minutes.

[andrewteale]

I got my comments in last Thursday (I've been very busy since). Basically the conclusions are as above; I also put a comment in on my own submission to correct a couple of errors. I made sure I was very positive about Tricky's work in Greater Manchester.

Because of the 500 word limit I limited myself to commenting only on the Bolton/Bury area.

[septimus]

I'll be interested to see how many changes are made. What's the past practice been, or is the consultation process new?

Here the Commission usually does only minor tinkering after the initial proposals, but the Parties and other interested people make their first submissions before the Commission's initial proposals, so the process is a bit different. Also ward boundaries aren't given special weight in working out the boundaries. There's more of an emphasis on communities of interest.

[Deleted]

The current process is very different to how things used be done (county by county, rather than an entire region in one go)

The old ways of doing it are similar, with the Commission often presenting very different proposals to their initial suggestions. It was rare for them to make wholesale changes but it did happen (I think Derbyshire, and to an extent Merseyside last time certainly did.)

This time round making a change in Carlisle could mess up Crewe, so it's not as easy for them.

[stepney]

Apr 3, 2012 5:37:59 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Apr 2, 2012 20:11:29 GMT stepney said:

This is about as close as you can get to trolling while (a) talking knowledgably about a completely arcane subject and (b) coming across as quite quite serious.

Ah, not so serious after all then.

Stepney - I am as serious as the subject matter allows me to be. We all worked together on our proposals for the NW and I am very proud of the proposals as a whole.

The Commission may decide to only tinker with one or two wards. They may decide to not change anything at all. Or change everything! Then MPs may decide to not vote through the changes making this entire exercise a whole lot of expensive flim-flam.

Whatever happens, I'll be batting for our team

Come, come, dok, you may be batting for your team, but if you think "Clitheroe and Lancaster" or "Preston North and... er... um... Preesall and Garstang?" are flyers you're clearly taking the mickey.

Also, more seriously, I'd strongly doubt they'll cross the Ribble at Preston as they didn't in their initial proposals (except for the Fishwick daftness which will probably be ironed out).

[stepney]

Apr 3, 2012 9:11:11 GMT @ianrobo said:

on this consultation exercise how do the number of responses contrast to previous ones. My guess is that the number of replies are massively up.

Last review: "The report of the fourth general review records that over 40,000 representations and petitions were received. The equivalent figure for this review is 29,000. The petitions alone contained an approximate total of 54,000 signatures giving an overall participation of about 83,000."

If you mean how many responses in this spring 2012 consultation as opposed to the autumn 2011 one: I think it'll be something like 5,000 responses this time.

[Deleted]

Apr 3, 2012 13:47:11 GMT stepney said:

Apr 3, 2012 5:37:59 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Stepney - I am as serious as the subject matter allows me to be. We all worked together on our proposals for the NW and I am very proud of the proposals as a whole.

The Commission may decide to only tinker with one or two wards. They may decide to not change anything at all. Or change everything! Then MPs may decide to not vote through the changes making this entire exercise a whole lot of expensive flim-flam.

Whatever happens, I'll be batting for our team

Come, come, dok, you may be batting for your team, but if you think "Clitheroe and Lancaster" or "Preston North and... er... um... Preesall and Garstang?" are flyers you're clearly taking the mickey.

Also, more seriously, I'd strongly doubt they'll cross the Ribble at Preston as they didn't in their initial proposals (except for the Fishwick daftness which will probably be ironed out).

We can agree on Fishwick

As I said at the time, I was trying to fit other ideas around selected seats of ours, so of course I was not being entirely serious Anyway, there already is a "Wyre and Preston North" connecting Fulwood with Garstang, we're just stretching it further west.

[YL]

Apr 3, 2012 11:50:03 GMT septimus said:

I'll be interested to see how many changes are made. What's the past practice been, or is the consultation process new?

The consultation process is different. In the last review, there would usually (unless there were no real objections to the initial proposals) be a public enquiry into the proposals. I definitely got the feeling that there was no point in submitting anything unless you were going to be able to go to the enquiry to defend it, which I wasn't, so I didn't submit anything last time. This time they said that online representations and those made at the hearing were going to be treated equally.

There's also more of an opportunity to comment on the first round submissions this time.

Here the Commission usually does only minor tinkering after the initial proposals, but the Parties and other interested people make their first submissions before the Commission's initial proposals, so the process is a bit different. Also ward boundaries aren't given special weight in working out the boundaries. There's more of an emphasis on communities of interest.

I think both of those would be substantial improvements. If they'd had submissions from local people in the first place, I doubt some of the horrors in the initial proposals would have appeared. I suppose the concern is that the parties would just submit gerrymanders, but that happens anyway to some extent. And I think it's totally obvious that treating wards roughly twice the size of the tolerance window as indivisible is going to make it very hard to draw sensible boundaries. (NB the no ward splitting policy is England-only; the other three commissions all have at least one split ward in their initial proposals.)

[Pete Whitehead]

Which is ironic as in Wales and Northern Ireland (but clearly not in Scotland), ward splitting is entirely unnecessary