|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 7:43:43 GMT
If, instead of pairing Cheshire with Trafford, it is paired with Wigan, it is easy to put a boundary in the Mersey and have a coherent Northwich. 1 Wigan 75661 Yes 2 Makerfield 74400 Yes 3 Leigh 69245 Yes 4 Warrington Golborne 76018 Yes 5 Warrington South 76179 Yes 6 Widnes 72082 Yes 7 Runcorn 69613 Yes 8 Ellesmere Port & Bromborough 71022 Yes 9 Knutsford 75518 Yes 10 Macclesfield 73146 Yes 11 Northwich 70472 Yes 12 Chester 71041 Yes 13 Neston 73205 Yes 14 Congleton 72626 Yes 15 Crewe 69559 Yes I like the way this sorts Wigan out, but there will be concerns that pairing Cheshire with Wigan is unlikely to be a long-term solution, ie. it's an arrangement that people will be looking to undo at the following Review. Also, it splits Warrington in three, and there's the strange Wilmslow-Middlewich seat that also includes an orphan ward. And Neston-Wybunbury is a bit of a stretch. And won't you need a Trafford-Salford cross-border seat? Any pairing is likely to be undone at the next review. Trafford does need a cross-border seat with either Cheshire, Manchester or Salford. I suggest the continued pairing with Manchester is best. Cities like Manchester have to be split. Smaller towns don't. This is my best shot at Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Trafford: 1 Rochdale 72154 Yes 2 Heywood 72939 Yes 3 Oldham Castleton 72804 Yes 4 Oldham Saddleworth 72731 Yes 5 Blackley 74251 Yes 6 Openshaw & Failsworth 73003 Yes 7 Ashton-u-L 71991 Yes 8 Hyde 73129 Yes 9 Gorton & Denton 73649 Yes 10 Stretford 73086 Yes 11 Moss Side 71606 Yes 12 Withington 71625 Yes 13 Sale 75008 Yes 14 Wythenshawe & Hale 75945 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jul 26, 2020 8:22:25 GMT
I like the way this sorts Wigan out, but there will be concerns that pairing Cheshire with Wigan is unlikely to be a long-term solution, ie. it's an arrangement that people will be looking to undo at the following Review. Also, it splits Warrington in three, and there's the strange Wilmslow-Middlewich seat that also includes an orphan ward. And Neston-Wybunbury is a bit of a stretch. And won't you need a Trafford-Salford cross-border seat? Any pairing is likely to be undone at the next review. Trafford does need a cross-border seat with either Cheshire, Manchester or Salford. I suggest the continued pairing with Manchester is best. Cities like Manchester have to be split. Smaller towns don't. This is my best shot at Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Trafford: 1 Rochdale 72154 Yes 2 Heywood 72939 Yes 3 Oldham Castleton 72804 Yes 4 Oldham Saddleworth 72731 Yes 5 Blackley 74251 Yes 6 Openshaw & Failsworth 73003 Yes 7 Ashton-u-L 71991 Yes 8 Hyde 73129 Yes 9 Gorton & Denton 73649 Yes 10 Stretford 73086 Yes 11 Moss Side 71606 Yes 12 Withington 71625 Yes 13 Sale 75008 Yes 14 Wythenshawe & Hale 75945 Yes I 100% agree with the borough grouping however there's absolutely no way you'd get away with pairing Hale and Bowden with Wythenshawe. If the commission dared propose something remotely like that they'd be looking at a massacre by pitchfork! This is what I proposed for these boroughs. There is a double cross between Manchester-Trafford though I do think this is better than proposing something that would stand absolutely 0% chance of getting past the public consultation stage:  1)Heywood and Middleton (72,939) 2)Rochdale (71,563) 3)Saddleworth (72,969) 4)Oldham North and Royton (69,372) 5)Oldham South and Droylsden (74,828) 6)Ashton and Stalybridge (71,006) 7)Denton and Hyde (72,879) 8)Manchester Blackley (74,900) 9)Manchester Ardwick (76,197) 10)Manchester Chorlton (75,841) 11)Manchester Burnage (72,365) 12)Manchester Wythenshawe (73,671) 13)Altrincham (74,160) 14)Urmston (71,233) The best solution though would be for a 7.5% quota to be allowed so that Wythenshawe & Sale East can remain intact so I hope the commission go down this route. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 26, 2020 8:48:42 GMT
Any pairing is likely to be undone at the next review. Trafford does need a cross-border seat with either Cheshire, Manchester or Salford. I suggest the continued pairing with Manchester is best. Cities like Manchester have to be split. Smaller towns don't. This is my best shot at Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Trafford: 1 Rochdale 72154 Yes 2 Heywood 72939 Yes 3 Oldham Castleton 72804 Yes 4 Oldham Saddleworth 72731 Yes 5 Blackley 74251 Yes 6 Openshaw & Failsworth 73003 Yes 7 Ashton-u-L 71991 Yes 8 Hyde 73129 Yes 9 Gorton & Denton 73649 Yes 10 Stretford 73086 Yes 11 Moss Side 71606 Yes 12 Withington 71625 Yes 13 Sale 75008 Yes 14 Wythenshawe & Hale 75945 Yes I 100% agree with the borough grouping however there's absolutely no way you'd get away with pairing Hale and Bowden with Wythenshawe. If the commission dared propose something remotely like that they'd be looking at a massacre by pitchfork! |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 9:00:25 GMT
Any pairing is likely to be undone at the next review. Trafford does need a cross-border seat with either Cheshire, Manchester or Salford. I suggest the continued pairing with Manchester is best. Cities like Manchester have to be split. Smaller towns don't. This is my best shot at Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Trafford: 1 Rochdale 72154 Yes 2 Heywood 72939 Yes 3 Oldham Castleton 72804 Yes 4 Oldham Saddleworth 72731 Yes 5 Blackley 74251 Yes 6 Openshaw & Failsworth 73003 Yes 7 Ashton-u-L 71991 Yes 8 Hyde 73129 Yes 9 Gorton & Denton 73649 Yes 10 Stretford 73086 Yes 11 Moss Side 71606 Yes 12 Withington 71625 Yes 13 Sale 75008 Yes 14 Wythenshawe & Hale 75945 Yes I 100% agree with the borough grouping however there's absolutely no way you'd get away with pairing Hale and Bowden with Wythenshawe. If the commission dared propose something remotely like that they'd be looking at a massacre by pitchfork! This is what I proposed for these boroughs. There is a double cross between Manchester-Trafford though I do think this is better than proposing something that would stand absolutely 0% chance of getting past the public consultation stage: 1)Heywood and Middleton (72,939) 2)Rochdale (71,563) 3)Saddleworth (72,969) 4)Oldham North and Royton (69,372) 5)Oldham South and Droylsden (74,828) 6)Ashton and Stalybridge (71,006) 7)Denton and Hyde (72,879) 8)Manchester Blackley (74,900) 9)Manchester Ardwick (76,197) 10)Manchester Chorlton (75,841) 11)Manchester Burnage (72,365) 12)Manchester Wythenshawe (73,671) 13)Altrincham (74,160) 14)Urmston (71,233) The best solution though would be for a 7.5% quota to be allowed so that Wythenshawe & Sale East can remain intact so I hope the commission go down this route. But in order not to offend the sensibilities of Hale dwellers, you have continued to split Sale, but into three instead of two. Didsbury is split into two as is Littleborough. You have also changed three constituencies that have no need of change. Is it not better to face the pitchforks? |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jul 26, 2020 9:17:07 GMT
I 100% agree with the borough grouping however there's absolutely no way you'd get away with pairing Hale and Bowden with Wythenshawe. If the commission dared propose something remotely like that they'd be looking at a massacre by pitchfork! This is what I proposed for these boroughs. There is a double cross between Manchester-Trafford though I do think this is better than proposing something that would stand absolutely 0% chance of getting past the public consultation stage: 1)Heywood and Middleton (72,939) 2)Rochdale (71,563) 3)Saddleworth (72,969) 4)Oldham North and Royton (69,372) 5)Oldham South and Droylsden (74,828) 6)Ashton and Stalybridge (71,006) 7)Denton and Hyde (72,879) 8)Manchester Blackley (74,900) 9)Manchester Ardwick (76,197) 10)Manchester Chorlton (75,841) 11)Manchester Burnage (72,365) 12)Manchester Wythenshawe (73,671) 13)Altrincham (74,160) 14)Urmston (71,233) The best solution though would be for a 7.5% quota to be allowed so that Wythenshawe & Sale East can remain intact so I hope the commission go down this route. But in order not to offend the sensibilities of Hale dwellers, you have continued to split Sale, but into three instead of two. Didsbury is split into two as is Littleborough. You have also changed three constituencies that have no need of change. Is it not better to face the pitchforks? I'm just saying I doubt a Wythenshawe-Hale pairing would get through and that the pitchforks would almost certainly get their way as they are indeed correct that the pairing is an utterly terrible one. Granted the commission will probably just split wards instead to avoid splitting Sale so many times (i.e. by moving part of Brooklands into Altrincham & Sale West). |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,874
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 26, 2020 9:22:32 GMT
I 100% agree with the borough grouping however there's absolutely no way you'd get away with pairing Hale and Bowden with Wythenshawe. If the commission dared propose something remotely like that they'd be looking at a massacre by pitchfork! That doesn't specify what the "small part" of Manchester borough actually was, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 26, 2020 9:42:17 GMT
Well it wasn't Blackley was it..
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 26, 2020 9:43:55 GMT
Defined in the Boundary Commission review as "The part of the County Borough of Manchester in the present Altrincham Division". In other words, the part south of the River Mersey which was added to Manchester in 1931.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 26, 2020 9:47:16 GMT
That doesn't specify what the "small part" of Manchester borough actually was, though. Since Wythenshawe is historically in Cheshire, was annexed to Manchester in 1931 and no Manchester constituency is mentioned as having been redrawn in 1945... Edit: meh, didn't know England had ninjas. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 26, 2020 10:13:35 GMT
Defined in the Boundary Commission review as "The part of the County Borough of Manchester in the present Altrincham Division". In other words, the part south of the River Mersey which was added to Manchester in 1931. Yes. As I understand it, the changes to Newton, Stretford and Knutsford were fairly minor, realigning the seats to LA boundaries that had been changed since the previous redistribution in 1918. (Well, maybe slightly more substantial in the case of Knutsford because of significant changes to Wilmslow UD, but still only a couple of thousand electors; the realignments elsewhere shifted only a handful of electors.)
The big change was that the oversized Altrincham seat was essentially split in two: (a) Altrincham and Sale (the eponymous boroughs); and (b) everything else, which for want of any other name was labelled Bucklow (N Cheshire might have been better IMHO). It was short-lived; the whole area was redrawn in 1950 and Bucklow disappeared.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 26, 2020 11:36:10 GMT
Merseyside 11 seats Southport 71299 Sefton Central 70239 Bootle 75258 St Helens North 76090 all unchanged St Helens South 69726 Knowsley North 71737 Woolton & Knowsley South 73654 Riverside 71302 Wavertree 75648* - includes KAE West Derby 75944* Walton 76115 It's possible to arrange the Liverpool wards so that there are no split wards, but haven't yet found a satisfactory way of doing so. Switching KAE will unite most of Broadgreen in the Wavertree seat. Why is it satisfactory to split Huyton? You could try: 1 Anfield & Kirkby 74081 Yes 2 West Derby 75906 Yes 3 Huyton & Knotty Ash 72186 Yes 4 Riverside 71504 Yes 5 Wavertree 76200 Yes 6 Garston & Halewood 74723 Yes Thanks to emidsanorak for pointing out that other plans (including mine, posted a long way upthread) make a holy mess of Huyton. But his solution involves three seats crossing the Liverpool city boundary, so I had a go at whether it was possible to keep Huyton together with only one cross-border seat. Huyton by itself has nearly 46000 voters so simply adding it to Liverpool gives 379465 - too big to be practical for five seats. So I tried adding Kirkby instead. This actually doesn't work out too badly, although it left me to get three seats into Knowsley (less Kirkby) and St Helens, and while I kept Huyton together I ended up with two boundary-crossings and Presot cut in two.
Still, here it is for anyone interested.
Liverpool Garston - 70600 Liverpool Wavertree - 73731 Liverpool C (?) - 70577 Liverpool W Derby - 75328 Liverpool Walton & Kirkby - 76202 Huyton - 72729 St Helens S & Halewood - 75159 St Helens N (unchanged) - 76090
Edited to add: Or: add St Michael's and Mossley Hill into what is now more definitely Riverside; Kensington and Knotty Ash into Wavertree; Everton and Anfield into W Derby, and swap Clubmoor and Croxteth.
Riverside - 70009 Wavertree - 74344 W Derby - 76055 Walton & Kirkby - 75430
And I seem somehow to have captured on the screenshot the Wirral plan I posted yesterday, which I think I've now settled on as the best possible non-split plan in this difficult area. It keeps Ellesmere Port and Neston together, it involves only one crossing of the Wirral boundary, and it preserves Birkenhead and Wallasey as seats. The inclusion of Greasby in Wirral, and Seacombe in Birkenhead, although not exactly plus points, aren't the end of the world. I'm more concerned about the omission of Prenton from Birkenhead, but less so than I was yesterday because a little historical research has disclosed that Prenton has a long and relatively recent history as part of a Wirral seat (1885-1950 and 1974-83). It was in Bebington 1950-74 but not until 1983 was it included in Birkenhead for Parliamentary purposes, not even when Birkenhead had two seats 1918-50.
So I maintain that this plan, although not perfect, is considerably better than it looks on the map and I submit it as the standard against which any ward-split plan should be judged.
Ellesmere Port - 71022 Birkenhead - 75184 Wallasey - 69936 Wirral - 76208
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 26, 2020 11:51:07 GMT
Why is it satisfactory to split Huyton? You could try: 1 Anfield & Kirkby 74081 Yes 2 West Derby 75906 Yes 3 Huyton & Knotty Ash 72186 Yes 4 Riverside 71504 Yes 5 Wavertree 76200 Yes 6 Garston & Halewood 74723 Yes Thanks to emidsanorak for pointing out that other plans (including mine, posted a long way upthread) make a holy mess of Huyton. But his solution involves three seats crossing the Liverpool city boundary, so I had a go at whether it was possible to keep Huyton together with only one cross-border seat. Huyton by itself has nearly 46000 voters so simply adding it to Liverpool gives 379465 - too big to be practical for five seats. So I tried adding Kirkby instead. This actually doesn't work out too badly, although it left me to get three seats into Knowsley (less Kirkby) and St Helens, and while I kept Huyton together I ended up with two boundary-crossings and Presot cut in two. Still, here it is for anyone interested. Liverpool Garston - 70600 Liverpool Wavertree - 73731 Liverpool C (?) - 70577 Liverpool W Derby - 75328 Liverpool Walton & Kirkby - 76202 Huyton - 72729 St Helens S & Halewood - 75159 St Helens N (unchanged) - 76090
And I seem somehow to have captured on the screenshot the Wirral plan I posted yesterday, which I think I've now settled on as the best possible non-split plan in this difficult area. It keeps Ellesmere Port and Neston together, it involves only one crossing of the Wirral boundary, and it preserves Birkenhead and Wallasey as seats. The inclusion of Greasby in Wirral, and Seacombe in Birkenhead, although not exactly plus points, aren't the end of the world. I'm more concerned about the omission of Prenton from Birkenhead, but less so than I was yesterday because a little historical research has disclosed that Prenton has a long and relatively recent history as part of a Wirral seat (1885-1950 and 1974-83). It was in Bebington 1950-74 but not until 1983 was it included in Birkenhead for Parliamentary purposes, not even when Birkenhead had two seats 1918-50. So I maintain this this plan, although not perfect, is considerably better than it looks on the map and I submit it as the standard against which any ward-split plan should be judged. Ellesmere Port - 71022 Birkenhead - 75184 Wallasey - 69936 Wirral - 76208
As a nice trick you've managed to split Wallasey, Birkenhead, Moreton, Bebington, Eastham & Bromborough with that map, which is some achievement! I'll post my promised Wirral map later today. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 26, 2020 12:03:44 GMT
"As a nice trick you've managed to split Wallasey, Birkenhead, Moreton, Bebington, Eastham & Bromborough with that map, which is some achievement!"
We aim to please.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 13:16:57 GMT
Back to the East Midlands. If the region is entitled to 48 seats, Leicestershire just about has to have a cross-county seat with Northamptonshire and it's better if it also has one with Nottinghamshire: 1 Melton & Bingham 74180 Yes 2 Loughborough 70205 Yes 3 Ashby de la Z 70899 Yes 4 Charnwood 74094 Yes 5 Leicester North East 74754 Yes 6 Leicester West 72456 Yes 7 Leicester South East 71231 Yes 8 Blaby 70079 Yes 9 Wigston 72413 Yes 10 Bosworth 71574 Yes 11 Harborough & Desborough 70483 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 13:32:02 GMT
Back to the East Midlands. If the region is entitled to 48 seats, Leicestershire just about has to have a cross-county seat with Northamptonshire and it's better if it also has one with Nottinghamshire: 1 Melton & Bingham 74180 Yes 2 Loughborough 70205 Yes 3 Ashby de la Z 70899 Yes 4 Charnwood 74094 Yes 5 Leicester North East 74754 Yes 6 Leicester West 72456 Yes 7 Leicester South East 71231 Yes 8 Blaby 70079 Yes 9 Wigston 72413 Yes 10 Bosworth 71574 Yes 11 Harborough & Desborough 70483 Yes View Attachment If, on the other hand the region only qualifies for 47 seats, there is no need for a cross-county seat with Nottinghamshire, or with Northamptonshire. But there has to be a cross-county seat. Here is my preferred option: 1 Ashby & Swadlincote 74450 Yes 2 Coalville 74402 Yes 3 Loughborough 74479 Yes 4 Melton Mowbray 73090 Yes 5 Leicester Syston 75083 Yes 6 Leicester West 72456 Yes 7 Leicester East 72214 Yes 8 Leicester Wigston 70919 Yes 9 Hinckley 74073 Yes 10 Blaby 76234 Yes 11 Harborough 71122 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 17:33:07 GMT
In a 48 seat East Midlands, Northamptonshire has to have a cross-county seat. My preferred option is: 1 Harborough & Desborough 70483 Yes 2 Corby 75045 Yes 3 Kettering 72769 Yes 4 Wellingborough 75049 Yes 5 Daventry 71578 Yes 6 Northampton North 69210 Yes 7 Northampton South 69910 Yes 8 Towcester 72660 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 26, 2020 18:07:31 GMT
My Greater Manchester plan. Initially I planned to put Chorlton in with Wythenshawe but as there is no road or other transport connection between these two parts of the city of Manchester, Wythenshawe must instead include Didsbury.  1. Manchester Blackley ~69,200 (succeeds Blackley & Broughton; ultra-safe Labour seat) 2. Manchester Central ~69,700 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 3. Manchester Gorton 72,688 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 4. Manchester Withington ~71,600 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 5. Manchester Wythenshawe ~76,000 (succeeds Wythenshawe & Sale East; very safe Labour seat; note that Didsbury was in the 1950-1974 version of Manchester Wythenshawe) 6. Altrincham & Sale South (succeeds Altrincham & Sale West; semi-marginal Conservative seat) 7. Stretford & Sale North (succeeds Stretford & Urmston; very safe Labour seat) 8. Davyhulme & Eccles 75,008 (new seat; safe Labour seat) 9. Salford ~69,200 (succeeds Salford & Eccles; ultra-safe Labour seat) 10. Worsley ~70,100 (succeeds Worsley & Eccles South; safe Labour seat) 11. Leigh 69,496 (marginal Conservative seat) 12. Makerfield 73,744 (semi-marginal Labour seat) 13. Wigan 75,299 (semi-marginal Labour seat) 14. Bolton West ~71,400 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) 15. Bolton North East ~69,200 (marginal Conservative seat; gains part of Smithills ward) 16. Bolton South East 69,585 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) 17. Hazel Grove 74,280 (marginal Conservative seat) 18. Cheadle 75,763 (marginal Conservative seat) 19. Stockport 76,014 (very safe Labour seat) 20. Denton & Ashton 70,756 (succeeds Denton & Reddish; very safe Labour seat) 21. Stalybridge & Hyde 73,129 (marginal Labour seat; unchanged) 22. Oldham West & Droylsden ~69,100 (succeeds Ashton-under-Lyne; very safe Labour seat) 23. Oldham Central & Royton ~71,900 (succeeds Oldham West & Royton; safe Labour seat) 24. Littleborough & Saddleworth 72,886 (succeeds Oldham East & Saddleworth; marginal Conservative seat) 25. Heywood & Middleton 73,002 (marginal Conservative seat) 26. Rochdale & Whitworth 69,211 (succeeds Rochdale; adds Whitworth wards in Rossendale; safe Labour seat) 27. Bury North 69,332 (ultra-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) 28. Bury South 75,637 (ultra-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged). New: Davyhulme & Eccles (+1 Lab) Changed from Lab to Con: Oldham East & Saddleworth [Littleborough & Saddleworth] Totals: Lab 18, Con 10. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 20:44:40 GMT
In a 48 seat East Midlands, Northamptonshire has to have a cross-county seat. My preferred option is: 1 Harborough & Desborough 70483 Yes 2 Corby 75045 Yes 3 Kettering 72769 Yes 4 Wellingborough 75049 Yes 5 Daventry 71578 Yes 6 Northampton North 69210 Yes 7 Northampton South 69910 Yes 8 Towcester 72660 Yes View AttachmentIn a 47 seat East Midlands, Northamptonshire can stand on its own: 1 Corby 75045 Yes 2 Kettering 76229 Yes 3 Wellingborough 75062 Yes 4 Daventry 75719 Yes 5 Northampton North 75489 Yes 6 Northampton South 74732 Yes 7 Towcester 76138 Yes  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 26, 2020 21:22:55 GMT
This is my Wirral plan, that for unsplit wards is as good as you're going to get with these numbers:  Wallasey 69,103 Birkenhead 74,300 West Wirral 71,303 South Wirral 71,243 This splits no settlements other than the big ones of Wallasey & Birkenhead in the Met Borough (which are essentially unavoidable in both cases with any sensible plan) and hives off the Suttons and Overpool/Netherpool from Ellesmere Port, but they have a separate identity anyway being more suburban communities like Eastham, Bromborough and Bebington rather than an industrial town like Ellesmere Port. All four seats are entirely on the Wirral, are coherant (apart from South Wirral which if non-split warding is unavoidable) and if you were up for some ward splitting, the far eastern polling district of Willaston & Thornton would keep everything in quota and tidy things up nicely. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 26, 2020 21:29:42 GMT
It's Ellesmere Port. Ellesmere is in Shropshire... meh, tired of spelling it out every time. There must be some local nickname? Port |
|
