|
Post by manchesterman on Jun 8, 2021 15:03:06 GMT
Are these proposals published anywhere??
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jun 8, 2021 15:03:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jun 8, 2021 15:05:00 GMT
Bolton South and Walkden looks similar to the old Farnworth seat, with possible a few difference at the Bolton end. It looks very safe labour on those potential boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 8, 2021 15:08:59 GMT
They must have recruited doktorb to come up with a name like West Pennine Moors On the criteria of (a) sanity, (b) brevity, (c) centrality and (d) precedent, I suggest 'Darwen' if a seat with these boundaries survives the review.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 8, 2021 15:56:00 GMT
Crossposted from the Pitchfork Bait thread: West Pennine Moors (78263) With one exception, none of the wards in this seat have a direct road connection between them.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 8, 2021 18:05:16 GMT
Imagine not having heard of Newton Abbot. 83A And as an A-suffix clearly more significant than Taunton (83B), Exeter (83C) or Plymouth (83D).
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 8, 2021 19:30:03 GMT
That South Cheshire constituency is . . . interesting!
Boundaries with Flintshire, Wrexham, Shropshire and Staffordshire?
Lache to Blakenhall !
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 8, 2021 19:52:46 GMT
Do we really need to call the recommendations of an independent body gerrymandering? Would you rather they were accused of complete and utter incompetence?
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 8, 2021 20:27:12 GMT
Do we really need to call the recommendations of an independent body gerrymandering? Would you rather they were accused of complete and utter incompetence? Yes.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,396
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 8, 2021 21:47:25 GMT
That South Cheshire constituency is . . . interesting! Boundaries with Flintshire, Wrexham, Shropshire and Staffordshire? Lache to Blakenhall ! I am glad that the names Eddisbury and Weaver Vale have been consigned to history though. I’m sure that in several areas the obscure local authority names have been removed in favour of more identifiable names -such as Worksop and Retford instead of Bassetlaw, yet Hyndburn still remains when it should be Accrington. And 3 Rivers makes an appearance which is just ridiculous. Quietly moving Kersal into Bury South in terms of character is unlikely to generate pitchforks but the name certainly might as Kersal has nothing to do with Bury. To acknowledge this it should be Prestwich (and Radcliffe South) and Bury North should be Bury (and Radcliffe North). Because Kersal leans towards Prestwich but not the borough of Bury. I am glad that the prefix of ‘Manchester’ Blackley returns - not sure what the people of Middleton deserved to be split, as such shouldn’t it be acknowledged in the name too - Manchester Blackley and Middleton South/Manchester North and Middleton South. The latter may sound silly but don’t forget there was a Gateshead East and Washington West. And of course Heywood becoming Heywood and Middleton North. I’m not happy that Failsworth and Droylsden (a name from the 600 review) contains no fewer than 3 Manchester wards yet again it doesn’t have the Manchester prefix. Manchester East it should be. As said earlier Manchester Rusholme makes more sense than Longsight, given it’s in the heart of the constituency. It’s great that Eccles is reunited, and the Walkden/Bolton link makes sense, as does Astley going with Worsley (once again), so no ‘Eccles South’ without a north… until you get to Leigh. What happened to Leigh North? Also ‘Leigh South and Atherton’ includes Ashton ward, which must refer to Ashton in Makerfield - so even the Makerfield name (which I never liked as there is no town of Makerfield) doesn’t make sense any more. Wigan South would make sense, but also it’s the Leigh West ward in there, not Leigh North (which doesn’t seem to exist - I guess Atherleigh is Leigh North, which is guess what… in Leigh South!).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 9, 2021 9:12:04 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers.
Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jun 9, 2021 9:27:25 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers.
Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
This is a much better arrangement, I'd suggest it to the commission
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 9, 2021 11:13:53 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers. Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
Neston to the Staffordshire border is, arguably, even worse! And West Cheshire is an awful name for a seat that sprawls to the south eastern corner of the county. (Cheshire Rural?) But I'll grant that your Chester seat is oodles better!
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,135
Member is Online
|
Post by WJ on Jun 9, 2021 12:27:28 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers. Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
Neston to the Staffordshire border is, arguably, even worse! And West Cheshire is an awful name for a seat that sprawls to the south eastern corner of the county. (Cheshire Rural?) But I'll grant that your Chester seat is oodles better! I disagree, sprawl is inevitable when it comes to these largely rural seats and it is a price worth paying to keep a city, like Chester, intact. Think of the neighbouring seat of North Shropshire, another seat that spans between the Welsh border and Staffordshire. In reality, Market Drayton and Oswestry have no business being in the same seat, but the configuration raises no complaints because separating them would cause chaos in the rest of the county- requiring splits to at least one of Shrewsbury or Telford.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 9, 2021 12:45:23 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers. Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
I think that to reduce the sprawl to reasonable levels it'd help to take Nantwich out of the Crewe seat as I proposed. (Though it'll need some rejigging if we stick with the Commission's Halton proposal.) ukelect.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/2023-review-cheshire/
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 9, 2021 16:10:33 GMT
The Greater Manchester proposals are fairly good on the whole. Bolton is neater than any of us here had it. They've still added the wrong ward to Bury North even though the Assistant Commissioner tells them every time it should be Unsworth... The split of Middleton is nasty and I prefer my scheme there. But it's not as bad as that West Pennine Moors seat which should be shot down in flames at the inquiry. It appears that the way they've made Bolton neater is to offload all the damage into Wigan. Leigh, Lowton and Ashton-in-Makerfield all get divided in two. I don't foresee that being popular.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 9, 2021 16:53:11 GMT
The Greater Manchester proposals are fairly good on the whole. Bolton is neater than any of us here had it. They've still added the wrong ward to Bury North even though the Assistant Commissioner tells them every time it should be Unsworth... The split of Middleton is nasty and I prefer my scheme there. But it's not as bad as that West Pennine Moors seat which should be shot down in flames at the inquiry. It appears that the way they've made Bolton neater is to offload all the damage into Wigan. Leigh, Lowton and Ashton-in-Makerfield all get divided in two. I don't foresee that being popular. This will almost certainly get reversed at the enquiry stage; we have shown on this forum that there is no need to divide any of these communities.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 9, 2021 16:54:44 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers.
Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
If we can create a Nantwich seat out of the lower half of your proposed West Cheshire seat (Crewe can add Alsager, which is on the same railway line, in compensation), and a Neston seat out of the top half, that would be even better.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 9, 2021 18:08:08 GMT
Just to get the ball rolling on trying to make the NW less messy, how about this?
It covers the exact same area as four corresponding seats in the BCE plan so there are no knock-on implications elsewhere. Compared with the BCE plan it keeps Chester together and puts the whole of Winsford in the Northwich seat. And everything is good on the numbers. Chester - 70992. West Cheshire - 73006. Yes it sprawls. But it's not much worse, in that respect, than the BCE's S Cheshire seat, and it has the merit of not cutting Chester and Winsford in half. Runcorn - 69771. Northwich - 74459.
If we can create a Nantwich seat out of the lower half of your proposed West Cheshire seat (Crewe can add Alsager, which is on the same railway line, in compensation), and a Neston seat out of the top half, that would be even better. Alsager in Crewe and a separate Nantwich constituency would bear some resemblance to the pre-79 set up wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 9, 2021 20:33:51 GMT
The Greater Manchester proposals are fairly good on the whole. Bolton is neater than any of us here had it. They've still added the wrong ward to Bury North even though the Assistant Commissioner tells them every time it should be Unsworth... The split of Middleton is nasty and I prefer my scheme there. But it's not as bad as that West Pennine Moors seat which should be shot down in flames at the inquiry. It appears that the way they've made Bolton neater is to offload all the damage into Wigan. Leigh, Lowton and Ashton-in-Makerfield all get divided in two. I don't foresee that being popular. Lowton is fine, the Tyldesley/Astley area on the other hand is split, though that runs across the border into Salford as well, so I suppose there's an argument a boundary is going to go through there somewhere anyway, and already does. Swapping Leigh West and Ashton back needs a ward split. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an obvious place to do it, Makerfield would probably have to nibble some of the fringes of Leigh.
|
|