Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 27, 2020 16:42:43 GMT
Well, they have to be divided into several constituencies. But there don't have to be cross-border seats. If you treat the external boundary of Manchester as sacrosanct, you end up dividing communities like Didsbury or Chorlton. I would rather have constituencies crossing the MBC boundary than have such neighbourhoods split. It is correct that seats wholly within cities will usually cause the dividing of some communities between seats. But this has been the policy since time immemorial. If you look at the constituencies in major cities, in almost every case you'll find communities divided between seats. For example, the current seats here in Birmingham divide Handsworth, Kingstanding, Birchfield, Small Heath, Kings Heath, and Shenley Fields, just to name the main examples. Looking back over the recent past this seems to have mattered less, or at least been noticed less, than the splitting of towns. But this traditional splitting of neighbourhoods within cities has never really been a consequence of treating city boundaries as sacrosanct, but a consequence of never splitting wards. Most if not all of the problem could've been sorted by crafting the seats around the communities, rather than using wards as building blocks. I don't advocate going down that road like the Scots have done (with varied success), but the point is that city wards do not generally accurately reflect the pattern of communities, and splitting them judiciously is more likely to reduce the dividing of communities than increase it. (Your own Manchester plan splits Whalley Range, Longsight, and the city centre.) I concede that since the Didsbury wards are a rare example of well-drawn wards, removing a polling district is not ideal. But it would only be transferred to Withington, not to Stockport or Ulan Bator. And I come back to my original point: Manchester's shape is Manchester's problem, not one that you should co-opt parts of other boroughs to try to solve. (Your plan includes bacon strips from Ancoats to Fitton Hill and from Hulme to Denton.) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 27, 2020 17:20:49 GMT
If you treat the external boundary of Manchester as sacrosanct, you end up dividing communities like Didsbury or Chorlton. I would rather have constituencies crossing the MBC boundary than have such neighbourhoods split. It is correct that seats wholly within cities will usually cause the dividing of some communities between seats. But this has been the policy since time immemorial. If you look at the constituencies in major cities, in almost every case you'll find communities divided between seats. For example, the current seats here in Birmingham divide Handsworth, Kingstanding, Birchfield, Small Heath, Kings Heath, and Shenley Fields, just to name the main examples. Looking back over the recent past this seems to have mattered less, or at least been noticed less, than the splitting of towns. But this traditional splitting of neighbourhoods within cities has never really been a consequence of treating city boundaries as sacrosanct, but a consequence of never splitting wards. Most if not all of the problem could've been sorted by crafting the seats around the communities, rather than using wards as building blocks. I don't advocate going down that road like the Scots have done (with varied success), but the point is that city wards do not generally accurately reflect the pattern of communities, and splitting them judiciously is more likely to reduce the dividing of communities than increase it. I concede that since the Didsbury wards are a rare example of well-drawn wards, removing a polling district is not ideal. But it would only be transferred to Withington, not to Stockport or Ulan Bator. And I come back to my original point: Manchester's shape is Manchester's problem, not one that you should co-opt parts of other boroughs to try to solve. I tend to agree with you here. Within a city, the city identity and "local ties" are generally stronger than those within suburbs, so while I don't think that it's ideal that you have to split either Didsbury or Chorlton (which are clearly both integral parts of Manchester, not like Sutton Coldfield, Stocksbridge or Otley) to avoid crossing the Manchester boundary I agree that it is in general better to protect the city boundary. However, unfortunately the current system requires a regional view, and if the best solution for the region as a whole involves crossing Manchester's boundaries I'd have to accept that. I'm not really sure what the best way of fitting the GM boroughs together is: e.g. should Bolton and Wigan, currently paired for six seats and with close to six quotas, continue to be treated as a unit? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2020 17:52:31 GMT
Yes, it's awkward. On the numbers, Wigan and Bolton should be good for six seats and someone (I think it was you, YL) kindly showed a way of doing it. But it wasn't pretty, and in the end I found that splitting off Astley Mosley Common ward from Wigan seemed to make things work better (or Hulton from Bolton also did the trick). Either way, having an extra ward to play with also eased matters in Salford and Trafford, plus a modicum of ward-swapping was needed to get Manchester to work; so in the end I went with a grouping of Manchester/Trafford/Salford/Wigan/Bolton = 1149137 electors = 15.82 = 16 seats and this seemed to work out reasonably well.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 27, 2020 18:39:52 GMT
One of the principles I go by is that LA 2 shouldn't suffer because of LA 1's problems. It is difficult to make seats in Knowsley and Sefton because of their shapes and the way the settlements are distributed. But Liverpool shouldn't be made to suffer as a consequence. If you can keep Huyton together whilst having a single seat that crosses the border, then fine. But I don't think mashups are acceptable. I don't see that your principle is a principle because it cannot work in all cases. Rother has to suffer because Hastings doesn't have enough electors to be within quota. My preference is that settlements smaller than quota should not be split. Principles don't tend to work in all cases, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth having. I would certainly prefer it if Hastings had its own seat within its own district boundaries. (At the zombie review I proposed that Worthing be reunited.) But the law doesn't allow this to happen, so a "least worst" solution must be found. Certain communities are somewhat destined to be maltreated because of their location. eg. the three Prescot/Whiston wards should really be in a seat together, but they're currently split and most people, yourself included, have produced plans that continue to split them. On the subject of Huyton, there is clearly some merit in moving the border crossing to the north and having a Kirkby-Fazakerley seat. (Thereby keeping Huyton in one piece in a seat with Halewood.) The numbers are a tad tricky though, and I doubt the Commission will propose a Widnes-Halewood seat. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 27, 2020 19:17:42 GMT
On the subject of Huyton, there is clearly some merit in moving the border crossing to the north and having a Kirkby-Fazakerley seat. Not least because "Kirkby & Fazakerley" is such a great name to be said in a Scouse accent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 20:21:12 GMT
On the subject of Huyton, there is clearly some merit in moving the border crossing to the north and having a Kirkby-Fazakerley seat. Not least because "Kirkby & Fazakerley" is such a great name to be said in a Scouse accent. Oh for Dimbleby being made to say it (not that the BBC would go live to such a safe seat but you know what I mean) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2020 21:26:05 GMT
I don't see that your principle is a principle because it cannot work in all cases. Rother has to suffer because Hastings doesn't have enough electors to be within quota. My preference is that settlements smaller than quota should not be split. Principles don't tend to work in all cases, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth having. I would certainly prefer it if Hastings had its own seat within its own district boundaries. (At the zombie review I proposed that Worthing be reunited.) But the law doesn't allow this to happen, so a "least worst" solution must be found. Certain communities are somewhat destined to be maltreated because of their location. eg. the three Prescot/Whiston wards should really be in a seat together, but they're currently split and most people, yourself included, have produced plans that continue to split them. On the subject of Huyton, there is clearly some merit in moving the border crossing to the north and having a Kirkby-Fazakerley seat. (Thereby keeping Huyton in one piece in a seat with Halewood.) The numbers are a tad tricky though, and I doubt the Commission will propose a Widnes-Halewood seat. I'm not sure about linking Huyton and Halewood. Putting Kirkby itself in with Liverpool works quite well for five seats but adding Prescot N too gives too many electors for a satisfactory five-seat solution. So this leaves Knowsley less Kirkby plus St Helens for three largish seats. The only way I could do this was to cross the borough boundary twice, but the seats themselves aren't too bad: one for the six Huyton wards plus Prescot N, Ecclestone and W Park; St Helens N as is; and St Helens S & Halewood for everything else. It's not an ideal arrangement but better, I think, than previous plans (including mine) that completely dismember Huyton. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 28, 2020 5:25:03 GMT
The rest of Lancashire, based on 74 seats for the North West. uc=unchanged Salford 71544* includes Pendlebury GA GB GC GH SB Eccles 72065* Walkden 75418* (3-borough seat) Leigh 71078* includes Hindsford and Shakerley Makerfield 74400 uc Wigan 75661 uc Bolton NE 69069 Bolton SW 71171* includes Oxhey and Claypool Chorley & Westhoughton 76037* West Lancs 73678 uc Leyland 72992 South Ribble 75801 Blackburn 69300 uc Rossendale & Darwen 74094 uc Hyndburn 71267 uc Burnley 72226 - includes Whalley Pendle 69416 Clitheroe & Garstang 69174 Preston 70921 Fylde 69441 - I've included Ashton because Ingol is now split between wards. Blackpool South 71428 Blackpool N & Cleveleys 72516 Lancaster & Fleetwood 70403 Morecambe 72301 - includes 2 Cumbria wards Attachments:
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,874
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 28, 2020 12:25:23 GMT
Morecambe 72301 - includes 2 Cumbria wards Arnside and Milnthorpe, presumably? That does make a kind of sense tbh, in a way moving further north towards Kendal does not. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 28, 2020 13:32:13 GMT
I previously posted a 27 seat version of the North East. Here is a 26 seat version: 1 Berwick 75001 Yes 2 Blyth 74238 Yes 3 Cramlington & Longbenton 75018 Yes 4 Tynemouth 75923 Yes 5 N-u-T Ponteland 75549 Yes 6 N-u-T Central 76134 Yes 7 N-u-T Wallsend 75053 Yes 8 Hexham & Consett 75715 Yes 9 Blaydon 74088 Yes 10 Gateshead 70616 Yes 11 South Shields 69369 Yes 12 Washington & Hebburn 75989 Yes 13 Sunderland North 69435 Yes 14 Sunderland South 71279 Yes 15 Stanley 74251 Yes 16 Durham 75047 Yes 17 Houghton & Easington 73052 Yes 18 Spennymoor 73400 Yes 19 Bishop Auckland 74484 Yes 20 Hartlepool 73689 Yes 21 Stockton Sedgefield 75375 Yes 22 Darlington 72587 Yes 23 Stockton Billingham 74361 Yes 24 Middlesbrough Eston 73738 Yes 25 Redcar 74608 Yes 26 Middlesbrough Thornaby 74000 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 28, 2020 13:32:55 GMT
I previously posted a 27 seat version of the North East. Here is a 26 seat version: 1 Berwick 75001 Yes 2 Blyth 74238 Yes 3 Cramlington & Longbenton 75018 Yes 4 Tynemouth 75923 Yes 5 N-u-T Ponteland 75549 Yes 6 N-u-T Central 76134 Yes 7 N-u-T Wallsend 75053 Yes 8 Hexham & Consett 75715 Yes 9 Blaydon 74088 Yes 10 Gateshead 70616 Yes 11 South Shields 69369 Yes 12 Washington & Hebburn 75989 Yes 13 Sunderland North 69435 Yes 14 Sunderland South 71279 Yes 15 Stanley 74251 Yes 16 Durham 75047 Yes 17 Houghton & Easington 73052 Yes 18 Spennymoor 73400 Yes 19 Bishop Auckland 74484 Yes 20 Hartlepool 73689 Yes 21 Stockton Sedgefield 75375 Yes 22 Darlington 72587 Yes 23 Stockton Billingham 74361 Yes 24 Middlesbrough Eston 73738 Yes 25 Redcar 74608 Yes 26 Middlesbrough Thornaby 74000 Yes View Attachment |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 28, 2020 19:05:10 GMT
Morecambe 72301 - includes 2 Cumbria wards Arnside and Milnthorpe, presumably? That does make a kind of sense tbh, in a way moving further north towards Kendal does not. Arnside and Burton. The Cumbria seats are quite large, but there's very little that you can add to a Morecambe seat without it becoming ridiculous. I did look at adding Grange, but it'd evoke comparison with Mersey Banks... Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 19:13:03 GMT
The rest of Lancashire, based on 74 seats for the North West. uc=unchanged Salford 71544* includes Pendlebury GA GB GC GH SB Eccles 72065* Walkden 75418* (3-borough seat) Leigh 71078* includes Hindsford and Shakerley Makerfield 74400 uc Wigan 75661 uc Bolton NE 69069 Bolton SW 71171* includes Oxhey and Claypool Chorley & Westhoughton 76037* West Lancs 73678 uc Leyland 72992 South Ribble 75801 Blackburn 69300 uc Rossendale & Darwen 74094 uc Hyndburn 71267 uc Burnley 72226 - includes Whalley Pendle 69416 Clitheroe & Garstang 69174 Preston 70921 Fylde 69441 - I've included Ashton because Ingol is now split between wards. Blackpool South 71428 Blackpool N & Cleveleys 72516 Lancaster & Fleetwood 70403 Morecambe 72301 - includes 2 Cumbria wards I actually really like that. I hope that Ashton doesn't move away into Fylde, that's quite a way into Preston and it includes the Docks now so that would be quite the stretch for "Fylde". Looking at "South Ribble" and other peoples' ideas for Lancashire looking as though it is coalescing around the same map, I am starting to prefer "West Lancashire North" and "West Lancashire South" for the Leyland seat, and Ormskirk seat respectively. I'm *amazed* that Lancaster and Fleetwood survives. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 28, 2020 19:35:31 GMT
I actually really like that. I hope that Ashton doesn't move away into Fylde, that's quite a way into Preston and it includes the Docks now so that would be quite the stretch for "Fylde". Looking at "South Ribble" and other peoples' ideas for Lancashire looking as though it is coalescing around the same map, I am starting to prefer "West Lancashire North" and "West Lancashire South" for the Leyland seat, and Ormskirk seat respectively. I'm *amazed* that Lancaster and Fleetwood survives. I doubt they'll use the Ashton ward myself. As an alternative to the 4-district North Lancashire seat, another arrangement is: Fylde 69150* Clitheroe & Fulwood 69267* Preston 71119 This doesn't quite work without splitting a ward, I don't think. I've added Nateby from the Garstang ward to the Fylde seat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 19:37:39 GMT
I actually really like that. I hope that Ashton doesn't move away into Fylde, that's quite a way into Preston and it includes the Docks now so that would be quite the stretch for "Fylde". Looking at "South Ribble" and other peoples' ideas for Lancashire looking as though it is coalescing around the same map, I am starting to prefer "West Lancashire North" and "West Lancashire South" for the Leyland seat, and Ormskirk seat respectively. I'm *amazed* that Lancaster and Fleetwood survives. I doubt they'll use the Ashton ward myself. As an alternative to the 4-district North Lancashire seat, another arrangement is: Fylde 69150* Clitheroe & Fulwood 69267* Preston 71119 This doesn't quite work without splitting a ward, I don't think. I've added Nateby from the Garstang ward to the Fylde seat. Wow, those electorate figures tell a story! Lancashire is going to be *tight* when the actual figures get confirmed. I can see some very controversial (and unchangeable) choices come the day. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 28, 2020 19:51:29 GMT
I doubt they'll use the Ashton ward myself. As an alternative to the 4-district North Lancashire seat, another arrangement is: Fylde 69150* Clitheroe & Fulwood 69267* Preston 71119 This doesn't quite work without splitting a ward, I don't think. I've added Nateby from the Garstang ward to the Fylde seat. Wow, those electorate figures tell a story! Lancashire is going to be *tight* when the actual figures get confirmed. I can see some very controversial (and unchangeable) choices come the day. Well, it depends what choices you make elsewhere. I decided not to take any wards from South Ribble district, but if you do the numbers are easier. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 28, 2020 19:59:45 GMT
The rest of Lancashire, based on 74 seats for the North West. uc=unchanged Salford 71544* includes Pendlebury GA GB GC GH SB Eccles 72065* Walkden 75418* (3-borough seat) Leigh 71078* includes Hindsford and Shakerley Makerfield 74400 uc Wigan 75661 uc Bolton NE 69069 Bolton SW 71171* includes Oxhey and Claypool Chorley & Westhoughton 76037* West Lancs 73678 uc Leyland 72992 South Ribble 75801 Blackburn 69300 uc Rossendale & Darwen 74094 uc Hyndburn 71267 uc Burnley 72226 - includes Whalley Pendle 69416 Clitheroe & Garstang 69174 Preston 70921 Fylde 69441 - I've included Ashton because Ingol is now split between wards. Blackpool South 71428 Blackpool N & Cleveleys 72516 Lancaster & Fleetwood 70403 Morecambe 72301 - includes 2 Cumbria wards I quite like this, until Lancaster & Fleetwood 70403 But it already exists, so the commission wouldn't be disappointed. I would swap Skerton with the rural wards east of Lancaster though*. You can also tidy up the Chorley/South Ribble area by rearranging the two seats as (1) Leyland plus all the Chorley wards not in Chorley & Westhoughton, (2) the remainder of South Ribble and the part of West Lancashire. The road between Penwortham and Tarleton does very briefly leave (2), but that really doesn't matter in this case. * I've read the reports on this from the 5th review. Astonishingly, the commission, apparently supported by both the Conservative and Labour parties, considered that the Lune is the main dividing feature in the area, and that there is no merit in Skerton being part of the Lancaster constituency. So this might well be left as it is. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 28, 2020 20:34:27 GMT
I'm now leaning towards trying not to cross the Greater Manchester external boundary. That means Lancashire and Cumbria have to share 20 seats, which sounds challenging. But is it that bad? Here's most of Lancashire:  1. Preston North & Longridge 71123 2. Preston South & Walton 76027 3. Chorley 75447 4. Leyland 72239 5. Ormskirk & Skelmersdale 75481 6. Rossendale & Darwen 73789 7. Blackburn 74925 8. Accrington 75077 9. Burnley 76188 10. Pendle & Bowland 76014 11. Fylde 74807 12. Lancaster & Wyre 73515 13. Blackpool South 71428 14. Blackpool North & Fleetwood 75929 The Preston "sandwich" can be rearranged to give an approximately inner/outer split. There is a problem coming up with the new wards in Pendle, which have a ward spanning Brierfield and Nelson. I think lancastrian posted a fairly similar plan some weeks back. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 28, 2020 20:40:44 GMT
Now Cumbria plus the Morecambe area:  15. Westmorland & Penrith 74868 16. Morecambe & Sedbergh 74944 17. Barrow & Furness 75053 18. Whitehaven & Workington 74785 19. North Lakeland 72651 20. Carlisle 75361 Apart from Penrith sticking out like an at least somewhat itchy thumb, I think this is actually better than what I had before: in particular taking less of Cumbria into the Morecambe seat means there's no need to separate Bowness from Windermere town. I know Sedbergh is tiny, but I like to acknowledge crossings of county boundaries in names and mentioning it is one way of doing so. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 28, 2020 20:49:50 GMT
Here's a 15 seat Cheshire:  1. Wallasey 69103 2. Birkenhead 74300 3. Wirral Deeside 71303 4. Bebington & Great Sutton 71243 5. Ellesmere Port & Halton Lea 72745 6. Halton 69428 7. Warrington South 71452 8. Warrington North 71592 9. Wilmslow & Lymm 69738 10. Macclesfield 69390 11. Congleton 74865 12. Crewe 72325 13. Nantwich & Eddisbury 71160 14. Northwich 73037 15. City of Chester 71041 The Wirral arrangement is that suggested by Khunanup. I'm not entirely convinced by it if I'm honest: the Wallasey split is a problem and both Ellesmere Port constituencies are ugly. However I don't think this is too bad away from the Wirral and Ellesmere Port. |
|
