|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 12, 2021 23:37:06 GMT
I've just got back from an evening's hiking in the area between Chorley and Darwen. It's desolate, barren and rather beautiful moorland. Chorley and Darwen simply doesn't work as a constituency on any level whatsoever. Even keeping the current Rossendale and Darwen seat is preferable as that would satisfy the minimum change rule. What are the other consequences of not keeping that one horrible constituency though? I agree it's shit, it's a long way round from the edge of Haslingden to Chorley, but Rossendale and Darwen screws up Burnley and Bacup and we'll end up with something like Burnley and Nelson perhaps with Colne and the rest of Pendle heading into a Clitheroe/Ribble Valley seat to clear up numbers-wise. It wouldn't be easy to sell, but I wonder if a Rossendale and Darwen minus Bacup and Whitworth plus Padiham and Hapton would hit the quota instead? Rawtenstall, Darwen and Padiham works mathematically if you include Blackburn South & Lower Darwen (or just Lower Darwen with the obvious ward split along the railway). And there is a decent road between Haslingden and Padiham even if it goes through (an unpopulated part of) Hyndburn. So it's maybe less bad than Adlington, but that's a very low bar to clear. But I think if you're not crossing the BwD/Chorley border the sensible solution is to leave Rossendale and Darwen as it is, leave Haslingden in Hyndburn and then either Burnley and Pendle both take chunks of Ribble Valley or Burnley takes Brierfield (where a ward split might also be possible now). The downside is to all these ideas is I think it's impossible to keep Clitheroe and all the neighbouring villages in one seat. I see that as less bad than the Adlington to Waterfoot thing though.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jun 13, 2021 17:05:20 GMT
I had a go at the North West. I'm reasonably happy with it although I don't know the area all that well so I'm sure there's at least something that would invite the pitchforks. There are two split wards: Upton (on the Wirral, same as commission) and Charlestown (Manchester). These are not shown on the map. Greater Manchester
15)Cheadle - 73,775 16)Hazel Grove - 72,941 17)Stockport - 74,769 18)Altrincham & Sale West - 73,934 19)Wythenshawe & Sale East - 76,971 20)Stretford & Urmston - 73,212 21)Manchester Withington - 71,614 22)Manchester Longsight - 71,094 23)Manchester Central - 73,037 24)Manchester Blackley - 77,673 (-part of Charlestown) 25)Failsworth & Droylsden - 72,082 (+part of Charlestown) 26)Ashton & Stalybridge (or just Ashton-under-Lyne) - 71,134 27)Denton & Hyde - 72,657 28)Oldham West & Royton - 73,240 29)Oldham East & Saddleworth - 72,997 30)Rochdale - 72,290 31)Heywood & Middleton - 72,969 32)Westhoughton & Horwich (or Bolton West) - 73,149 33)Bolton North (or Bolton North East) - 77,020 34)Bolton South (or Bolton South east) - 76,861 35)Bury (or Bury North) - 75,652 36)Radcliffe & Prestwich (or Bury South) - 75,955 37)Wigan - 75,607 38)Makerfield - 75,069 39)Leigh - 76,747 40)Salford - 72,169 41)Worsley & Eccles - 75,810 Lancashire
54)Chorley & Darwen - 73,701 55)Penwortham & Preston East - 74,974 56)Leyland - 76,878 57)Skelmersdale & Ormskirk - 75,458 58)Blackburn - 76,323 59)Accrington & Rawtenstall - 76,882 60)Burley & Bacup - 72,933 61)Nelson & Colne - 70,221 62)Clitheroe - 74,433 63)Preston - 74,586 64)Blackpool North & Fleetwood - 75,396 65)Blackpool South - 76,071 66)Fylde - 75,114 67)Lancaster - 75,469 68)Morecambe - 75,498 35-39 is what I was going to counterpropose, thanks for checking that works. Your Oldham West and Royton seat splits Rochdale town between three constituencies, I don't think that's going to work. Chorley and Darwen - no, this is basically the objection to the West Pennine Moors seat. The problem with the Rochdale area is that the borough needs to have 2 wards in a cross-borough seat and you can't do this without splitting a town. On the abandoned review I suggested giving Milnrow & Newhey and Littleborough Lakeside to Oldham East and was told that splitting Littleborough was an absolute no, no... Basically one of Middleton, Rochdale (3 times) or Littleborough has to be split, I don't know there area so I honestly don't know which one is the 'least bad' option but I think one will have to be chosen. Re. Darwen, I thought people were unhappy about its pairing with the Rossendale towns due to dreadful road links? At least from a map it seems to connect to Chorley a lot better. Other than Blackburn (which it can't go with due to that town being fine for 1 constituency) where should Darwen go because it seem in such an awkward place and doesn't seem to 'fit' anywhere? People don't like the Rossendale pairing, don't like the Chorley pairing and presumably wouldn't like it being paired with northern Bolton suburbs either. And yeah I really hope they don't go ahead with that Leigh South & Atherton monstrosity.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jun 13, 2021 17:21:28 GMT
To be honest I'd be looking at getting rid of the Sefton boundary crossings altogether and keeping its three seats unchanged. Several plans (most recently by pepperminttea ) have been posted on here which achieve that. I feel this region has done badly by comparison with most in the initial proposals. Copeland & Windermere back from the dead (and with a misleading name), West Pennine Moors, that Norris Green seat, several split towns in Greater Manchester... I keep meaning to respond to Pepps Merseyside proposals but can't find the time Suffice to say while I agree keeping the Sefton seats unchanged is definitely preferable it has massive knock on effects elsewhere not least for Liverpool Pepps proposed boundaries for Liverpool are really a hot mess (no offence to him he did the best he could given the rigidity of the quota) and given the choice between a Southport seat that stretches into rural Lancashire or his proposed Liverpool Fazakerley I'd take the former even though from a partisan perspective his Merseyside boundaries are better for Labour than what the commission came up with I'm not going to lie Liverpool was the area I struggled most with and I was trying (and technically succeeded) in avoiding the butchering Sefton by shoving a random part of Maghull into a Liverpool seat as the commission has done. Cheshire went smoothly and Manchester mostly fell into place but I was left with awful numbers in Liverpool. I managed to deal with St Helens by pairing it with Warrington (and then shifting Cheshire around) but getting 7 seats in quota from Liverpool, Knowsley and Widnes was an exercise in compromise to say the least. Other than 'Liverpool Fazakerley' which I don't deny is bad, I think the other seats in this area are alright, although I admit I don't Liverpool at all.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 17:38:36 GMT
35-39 is what I was going to counterpropose, thanks for checking that works. Your Oldham West and Royton seat splits Rochdale town between three constituencies, I don't think that's going to work. Chorley and Darwen - no, this is basically the objection to the West Pennine Moors seat. The problem with the Rochdale area is that the borough needs to have 2 wards in a cross-borough seat and you can't do this without splitting a town. On the abandoned review I suggested giving Milnrow & Newhey and Littleborough Lakeside to Oldham East and was told that splitting Littleborough was an absolute no, no... Basically one of Middleton, Rochdale (3 times) or Littleborough has to be split, I don't know there area so I honestly don't know which one is the 'least bad' option but I think one will have to be chosen. Re. Darwen, I thought people were unhappy about its pairing with the Rossendale towns due to dreadful road links? At least from a map it seems to connect to Chorley a lot better. Other than Blackburn (which it can't go with due to that town being fine for 1 constituency) where should Darwen go because it seem in such an awkward place and doesn't seem to 'fit' anywhere? People don't like the Rossendale pairing, don't like the Chorley pairing and presumably wouldn't like it being paired with northern Bolton suburbs either. I mean, I suppose Blackburn S & Darwen would be what Darwen would choose, but what do you then do with the rest of Blackburn? Anyways the real objection to W Pennine Moors is that it splits two random bits off Chorley and pairs them with half of Rossendale, crossing two extensive moorlands in the process. Your map doesn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 13, 2021 18:40:24 GMT
It is perfectly possible to ensure that the Sefton constituencies are left intact, even if a split of the Halton constituency is necessitated.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 13, 2021 18:40:54 GMT
Have only just reached North West and an totally gobsmacked by this ridiculous West Pennine Moors seat. You can leave Rossendale and Darwen much as it is, add Whalley to Hyndburn, Brierfield to Burnley, Clitheroe to Pendle, and extend Ribble Valley back into South Ribble where it is already, so South Ribble picks up the surplus Chorley wards.
And what a mess in Merseyside. You don’t need to cross the Merseyside border at all, Sefton is fine for 3 seats, and there’s no problem organizing Liverpool, Knowsley, and St Helens. Cheshire has to be sorted with Greater Manchester.
I see others don’t like Cumbria, but this is almost exactly as I have it.
The split of Skerton is curious and unnecessary.
I can see the logic of splitting Chester. No question but that Cheshire is difficult however you organise it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Jun 13, 2021 22:00:29 GMT
Those Cumbria proposals look problematic both in practice and also politically for Lib Dems. Copeland and Windermere is back from the zombie review as well (but called 'Copeland and the Western Lakes' so they hope no-one will notice) I know the numbers don't work well in Cumbria but I saw several better proposals on this thread. If it is going this way, I reckon that the Penrith & Kendal seat (sorry, 'Westmorland and Eden') might be the target - on the condition that a Rory Stewart endorsement could be secured. Penrith seems like a place that should be fertile territory for you, so I suppose there is potential there if you start the campaign now Start the campaign now? They started it before the pandemic. If you look at his actions rather than his words it is 100% obvious that Tim Farron saw the writing on the wall for his present seat a long time ago and started campaigning for the new constituency which has looked almost inevitable for months including the Northern part of Westmorland & Lonsdale and most of the current Penrith & the Borders seat. There are no ideal options for Cumbria but the Boundary Commission for England have proposed pretty much what many of us in the county thought they would more or less have to put forward. On the latest numbers the population of Cumbria is too big for five seats and way too small for six so there was always going to be a cross-county-boundary seat. The BCE can't propose going over the Anglo-Scottish border and would be most unlikely to go over a regional border into the North East so the only remaining option was a seat straddling the Cumbria/Lancashire border and there is no credible way to do that without carving up Westmorland & Lonsdale and putting a big chunk of it in with a Lancashire seat. Putting Eden and Westmorland together actually makes a lot of sense. Peter Whitehead wrote on 12th January "Talking of previous discussions, I remember previously advancing a compact urban West Cumbrian seat with my Penrith & Cockermouth seat taking the rural south of Copeland. Chris Whiteside said it was ridiculous - I don't suppose this option is any less so really?" Sorry if I was rude but I stand by that view, and "this option" though not quite as bad was not much better either. You can certainly create a credible "Whitehaven and Workington" seat of some kind, and I supported one ten years ago but on the numbers we have now that's going to give you at least one very odd seat somewhere else in the county. As I say, there there is no perfect option because Cumbria is a) huge b) relatively sparsely populated with small towns a goodly distance apart, and c) full of mountains and lakes so there is no way to avoid enormous constituencies some of which will have massive geographical barriers within them. Ten years ago at the public hearing for the Zombie review just about every single speaker - including me - referred to the fact that the then proposed Whitehaven and WIndermere seat had the deepest and longest lakes and the highest mountain in England between its two main centres and the only way to get from one to the other was to drive over Hardknott Pass (one of the highest mountain passes in the country) or around those mountains and lakes on a two hour journey much of which took you outside the constituency. Looking at what was proposed this week, with today's numbers and today's circumstances I am taking a different view of the "Copeland and the Western Lakes" constituency - a name from which I suspect we will propose dropping the word "Western" as it includes most of the central lakes as well. At least by keeping the Allerdale wards around Keswick which have been in the Copeland constituency since 2010 and adding part of Matt Brereton's High Furness division you actually have a joined-up ring of interconnected neighbouring communities around the mountains and lakes. And this time you can get from every major town in the constituency to every other without driving over mountain passes or outside the constituency, though it will still take you a long time! "Copeland and the Western lakes" may appear at first sight superficially similar to the "Whitehaven and Windermere" proposal ten years ago, but in terms of inhabited areas and road links the former is like a doughnut forming a complete ring around the mountains and lakes in the middle while the previous proposal was like an hourglass with the link between the two parts going over Hardknott Pass. The new proposed seat is not perfect but it is significantly less ridiculous than "Whitehaven and Windermere" was. I fully expect to get what I said and wrote against the boundary commission's original proposals ten years ago thrown back at me but in today's circumstances and with the demographic numbers, required seat sizes and rules as they are today I think what the boundary commission has put forward this week, or something very like it, is probably the best option available. In terms of giving the electorate a chance to make a difference I think that these proposals don't give any party any safe seats in Cumbria. The Conservatives would probably win all five seats entirely in Cumbria and the cross-border seat in a really good year like 2019 and lose all six in a bad year like 2001 or 2005. That's instead of winning all but one or losing all but one on the boundaries which were actually in place at the time so in terms of when Labour has a good year or the Conservatives have a good year it balances out. It is difficult to project what would happen in a year where the Conservatives and Labour were neck-and-neck because Britain's whole political position has been so volatile since the 2016 referendum that I genuinely don't know which votes where we would be most likely to lose to get to that position. It might well come down to local factors with the Conservatives and Labour having everything to play for in most of the seats and the Conservatives and Lib/Dems having everything to play for in Westmorland & Eden. Oh, and in answer to the person who asked if it is possible to avoid putting Grange-over-Sands in with Barrow and Furness, I very much doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 14, 2021 13:32:55 GMT
The problem with the Rochdale area is that the borough needs to have 2 wards in a cross-borough seat and you can't do this without splitting a town. On the abandoned review I suggested giving Milnrow & Newhey and Littleborough Lakeside to Oldham East and was told that splitting Littleborough was an absolute no, no... Basically one of Middleton, Rochdale (3 times) or Littleborough has to be split, I don't know there area so I honestly don't know which one is the 'least bad' option but I think one will have to be chosen. Re. Darwen, I thought people were unhappy about its pairing with the Rossendale towns due to dreadful road links? At least from a map it seems to connect to Chorley a lot better. Other than Blackburn (which it can't go with due to that town being fine for 1 constituency) where should Darwen go because it seem in such an awkward place and doesn't seem to 'fit' anywhere? People don't like the Rossendale pairing, don't like the Chorley pairing and presumably wouldn't like it being paired with northern Bolton suburbs either. I mean, I suppose Blackburn S & Darwen would be what Darwen would choose, but what do you then do with the rest of Blackburn? Anyways the real objection to W Pennine Moors is that it splits two random bits off Chorley and pairs them with half of Rossendale, crossing two extensive moorlands in the process. Your map doesn't do that. No non-sprawling monstrosity of a Blackburn N seat is possible. You'd have to split it into Blackburn SW and Darwen/Blackburn NE and Accrington W I think, which looks absolutely awful.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 14, 2021 16:48:47 GMT
I mean, I suppose Blackburn S & Darwen would be what Darwen would choose, but what do you then do with the rest of Blackburn? Anyways the real objection to W Pennine Moors is that it splits two random bits off Chorley and pairs them with half of Rossendale, crossing two extensive moorlands in the process. Your map doesn't do that. No non-sprawling monstrosity of a Blackburn N seat is possible. You'd have to split it into Blackburn SW and Darwen/Blackburn NE and Accrington W I think, which looks absolutely awful. I was thinking about a minimum fix not affecting too many constituencies just now. It's possible but it's not pretty. If you cross from BwD into Chorley further north, creating a Blackburn (most of) & Clayton constituency that's presumably fairly absurd but less so than West Pennine Moors is. The problem is that the two Clayton wards are large and you now need to shift three Blackburn wards into West Rossendale & Darwen. Which must be fairly small if that is to remain in quota, and the only option wd appear to be S & Lower Darwen (you want to use that anyways), SE (okay) and, wait for it, Central. But not Ewood which lies along the main road from C towards S. Or alternatively you can shift a ward out of W Rossendale into Burnley & Bacup in which case you are free to shift three Blackburn wards of your choice. There are suitably small wards in Rossendale so that B&B can remain in quota, but the sole obvious contender Whitewell is a little too large. Rather than hunt for an alternative design of the Burnley split in the north to accomodate Whitewell, I notice that Goodshaw ward at least borders Burnley (there's even a road connection) even if not the Bacup portion, and is sufficiently small. So, um, yeah. Better than nothing I guess.
|
|
|
Post by jamesgroves on Jun 14, 2021 21:46:39 GMT
Oh, and in answer to the person who asked if it is possible to avoid putting Grange-over-Sands in with Barrow and Furness, I very much doubt it. It can be done, e.g. start with pepperminttea 's proposal for Cumbria, move Broughton & Coniston ward from 'Westmorland' into Barrow & Furness, move Grange and Cartmel wards from Barrow & Furness into 'Morecambe & Bits of South Lakeland', and move Burton & Crooklands ward from 'Morecambe & Bits of South Lakeland' into 'Westmorland'. pepperminttea 's 'Morecambe etc' seat would then be slightly oversized, but that can be solved by moving both Skerton wards into the Lancaster seat, in return for Upper and Lower Lune Valley wards. Admittedly the 'Morecambe etc' seat would then spread across the Kent estuary, but (a) the BCE's proposed Barrow & Furness seat is spread across the Leven estuary, so either way you have a seat divided in two by an estuary, and (b) this is what Lancashire has historically always done. J
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Jun 16, 2021 22:44:08 GMT
You may argue for that if you wish, but in my book that's taking a proposal which starts out as less satisfactory and less well related to communities on the ground than the Boundary Commission's initial proposals, and then making it worse.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,380
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 17, 2021 20:00:26 GMT
Notional results for Bury suggest that North remains Tory (no idea of the exact majority - a 1% lead but would that actually be a higher numerical majority than 105?!) but South goes Labour, which I'm not sure about. I think it would still be just as tight and could go either way (if 2019 was repeated that is). We can assume Radcliffe North which it loses to North is now reliably conservative, but Kersal and Broughton Park have been too, on a local level at least, and in the GM Mayor race the Tories did relatively well there. So on paper it seems to me a straight swap rather than a certain Labour gain?
However I'm not certain as to how K&BP would vote in a national election, it is very much a ward of two halves - Lower Kersal being white working class, the sort of place where Get Brexit Done would have gone down well, and Broughton Park being one of the most Jewish areas and more opulent detached leafy housing, quite different to neighbouring Sedgley in Bury. But I have heard Stringer has been popular in both communities, his leave credentials in the former and his distance from Corbyn in the latter, so he could well have carried the ward comfortably. I doubt this is taken into account when making these notional assumptions, though.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 21, 2021 11:45:01 GMT
Having a look at Darwen, it strikes me that Accrington and Darwen might work as a pairing, because at least there's a motorway link round the southern side of Blackburn. The difficulty is that you have to leave Rishton and the two Great Harwood wards out for the numbers to work, which leaves you with some distinctly awkward Ribble Valley constituencies. So probably not an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 21, 2021 14:11:37 GMT
The BCE scheme in the North West bothers me more than anywhere else except the South West and London. I've already made a modest proposal regarding the west Cheshire area, but the bigger problems lie in the southern part of Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside so here's a stab at this area.
I found this difficult and it's still a work in progress so I'm more than usually willing to get shot down, but here goes -
Lancastrian Merseyside, plus Halton north of the Mersey, plus Lancs (incl BwD) up to and including Preston and Ribble Valley, gets a total of 22 seats in the BCE scheme. So this plan covers the exact same area except Sefton, which I'd prefer to treat separately for three seats. The map shows the remaining 19.
Six of these seats - three in Liverpool, Widnes, Blackburn and Preston - are identical to the BCE scheme. There is one horror show in the form of St Helens N & Aughton, but is even that as bad as the BCE's W Pennine monstrosity? And while I've made a mess of Huyton, so has the BCE. Elsewhere, though, this arrangement doesn't seem to me to be all that bad (although I'm the first to agree that this is not really my part of the world).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 22, 2021 9:09:36 GMT
Looking again at the plan I posted yesterday, it strikes me that a feature it has in common with the BCE scheme is that Lancastrian Merseyside + W Lancs + Halton north of the Mersey form a 'greater Liverpool' subgroup with 13 seats (i.e. the 10 shown on my plan, plus 3 from Sefton). This leaves everything else as a 'central Lancs' subgroup with 9. So the two subgroups can be treated separately: you can opt for the BCE scheme is 'gtr Liverpool' and my version in 'central Lancs', or vice versa.
Reviewing this after a night's sleep, I'm reasonably happy with the 'central Lancs' area but I feel that 'greater Liverpool' needs more work - specifically, maybe it might be better to carve up Sefton after all.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 22, 2021 9:18:59 GMT
I like your Central Lancs - agree 'greater Liverpool' needs more work. I'd also note that the BCE have proposed disturbing arrangements in Sefton even though all three seats are currently in quota (moving Molyneux out of Sefton Central and Ainsdale in). Given that I think it provides an opening for you to ahead and propose what you did earlier, namely swapping Molyneaux and Victoria wards and thus enabling the return of the Crosby name instead of the awful Sefton Central
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 22, 2021 9:38:54 GMT
You mean like this?
Compared with my previous plan this keeps Huyton together as well as Prescot. The St Helens S seat is also better than the BCE version. In short there's a lot that's right about this plan but one thing horribly wrong with it, namely the mess it makes of St Helens N.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 22, 2021 9:54:03 GMT
For St Helens North, I think Up Holland is OK, as whilst it looks to Skem there's at least a clear boundary. But Aughton Park and Aughton & Downholland form an area of continuous settlement with Ormskirk. So I'd suggest taking Parbold and Wrightington instead.
You might also consider swapping Halewood for Rainhill and Prescot South, as whilst it does mean there's a seat spreading into 3 UAs, it means the Prescot/Whiston/Rainhill is only split between 2 seats rather than 3.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 22, 2021 10:02:37 GMT
(1) For St Helens North, I think Up Holland is OK, as whilst it looks to Skem there's at least a clear boundary. But Aughton Park and Aughton & Downholland form an area of continuous settlement with Ormskirk. So I'd suggest taking Parbold and Wrightington instead. (2) You might also consider swapping Halewood for Rainhill and Prescot South, as whilst it does mean there's a seat spreading into 3 UAs, it means the Prescot/Whiston/Rainhill is only split between 2 seats rather than 3. (1) Thanks. That's definitely an improvement. The St Helens N seat is still horrible (but no worse) but the W Lancs seat is much better.
(2) I thought of that but I don't want a three-UA seat.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 29, 2021 0:32:40 GMT
The BCE scheme in the North West bothers me more than anywhere else except the South West and London. I've already made a modest proposal regarding the west Cheshire area, but the bigger problems lie in the southern part of Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside so here's a stab at this area.
I found this difficult and it's still a work in progress so I'm more than usually willing to get shot down, but here goes -
Lancastrian Merseyside, plus Halton north of the Mersey, plus Lancs (incl BwD) up to and including Preston and Ribble Valley, gets a total of 22 seats in the BCE scheme. So this plan covers the exact same area except Sefton, which I'd prefer to treat separately for three seats. The map shows the remaining 19.
Six of these seats - three in Liverpool, Widnes, Blackburn and Preston - are identical to the BCE scheme. There is one horror show in the form of St Helens N & Aughton, but is even that as bad as the BCE's W Pennine monstrosity? And while I've made a mess of Huyton, so has the BCE. Elsewhere, though, this arrangement doesn't seem to me to be all that bad (although I'm the first to agree that this is not really my part of the world).
Bit late on this, but a couple of comments on the Lancashire section. 1) Haslingden. The split can be resolved by reverting to the current arrangements, so moving Lower Darwen (and Blackburn South if no ward splits allowed) to Rossendale & Darwen, Greenfield to Hyndburn. This still works with Hyndburn's protrusion into Ribble Valley. 2) The constituency coloured green is very Preston focused - nearly two thirds of the electorate is in Preston or South Ribble, Longridge is strongly linked to Preston, villages south of the Ribble are fairly well connected by the A59. Bowland isn't. However, there are limits on how much you can fit into the Clitheroe seat. Gisburn can be moved without affecting anything else, but after that it gets tricky. On the basis that the A59 is a much better transport link than anything else around, you could shift Whalley to the green Mid Lancs thing, then Sabden to Hyndburn, making room for the Bowland, West Bradford & Grindleton and Waddington, Bashall Eaves & Mitton wards (including Gisburn, this area nearly coinciding with the former Bowland RD) with Clitheroe, but all these places would ideally stay with Clitheroe. Whalley definitely has the better links to the rest of the Mid Lancs seat though.
|
|