|
Post by islington on Jun 29, 2021 8:18:52 GMT
Thanks to lancastrian for feedback. How about this? Chorley - 74561. Leyland - 72036. The successor to S Ribble.
Preston - 74644. As per BCE. Mid Lancashire - 75102. It would probably end up being called Ribble Valley. The awkward shape in the southeastern corner is to keep the whole Whalley area together. Clitheroe - 76134. Burnley - 75436. Accrington - 71145. Unchanged except for the name. Rossendale and Darwen - 74593. Unchanged except for ward realignment. Blackburn - 70586. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jun 29, 2021 10:37:43 GMT
Looking at some of the proposals put forward by folk here plus messing around with the BA myself its clear to me that to avoid total horror Sefton can't be kept whole, the knock on effects are too huge, there needs to be cross borough seats.
I really don't see why this is a huge issue though, the comissions proposed Southport is fine and a cross borough seat with North Liverpool and South Sefton is perfectly acceptable if done sensibly
Creating unwieldy monstrosities for the sake of preserving an arbitrary boundary between Bootle and Walton makes no sense to me
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 29, 2021 10:54:04 GMT
Looking at some of the proposals put forward by folk here plus messing around with the BA myself its clear to me that to avoid total horror Sefton can't be kept whole, the knock on effects are too huge, there needs to be cross borough seats. I really don't see why this is a huge issue though, the comissions proposed Southport is fine and a cross borough seat with North Liverpool and South Sefton is perfectly acceptable if done sensibly Creating unwieldy monstrosities for the sake of preserving an arbitrary boundary between Bootle and Walton makes no sense to me Well, when an authority like Sefton can be (and currently is) treated separately, it should be, if this is possible without creating 'total horror' elsewhere.
The trouble with the BCE scheme is that it has done the 'split Sefton' bit but has failed to achieve the 'avoid total horror' part: Huyton is chopped in half, Prescot is still split, the Liverpool boundary is crossed twice.
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jun 29, 2021 11:15:44 GMT
Looking at some of the proposals put forward by folk here plus messing around with the BA myself its clear to me that to avoid total horror Sefton can't be kept whole, the knock on effects are too huge, there needs to be cross borough seats. I really don't see why this is a huge issue though, the comissions proposed Southport is fine and a cross borough seat with North Liverpool and South Sefton is perfectly acceptable if done sensibly Creating unwieldy monstrosities for the sake of preserving an arbitrary boundary between Bootle and Walton makes no sense to me Well, when an authority like Sefton can be (and currently is) treated separately, it should be, if this is possible without creating 'total horror' elsewhere.
The trouble with the BCE scheme is that it has done the 'split Sefton' bit but has failed to achieve the 'avoid total horror' part: Huyton is chopped in half, Prescot is still split, the Liverpool boundary is crossed twice.
There's no easy solution but I actually think the BC have done about the best they could in Merseyside There's a few things they could tweak, I mentioned splitting Molyneux ward between Liverpool NG and Sefton C to make the seats less sprawling and more coherent but other than that there's no major issues with solutions, South Liverpool is a mess but there's literally no alternative The Prescott split is inconsequential, it's a neat divide along the railway line and its been in place for years now The Huyton dismemberment is equally inconsequential, Huyton really isn't a town in its own right, its Liverpool overspill with no real strong identity, locals won't care in the slightest Some of the proposals by others though do have actual pitchfork ramifications, so all in all with my one suggestion of splitting Molyneux I think its the best outcome in a bad situation
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 8, 2021 17:37:25 GMT
I reccomended to the commission to pair Saddleworth with Royton and Alexandra & St Mary's with the rest of Oldham. Oldham-72,914 (Alexandra,Chadderton N,C,S,Coldhurst,Hollinwood,Medlock Vale,St Mary's,Werneth) Royton & Saddleworth-72,204 (Crompton,Royton N,S,Saddleworth N,S, W and Lees, St James, Shaw, Waterhead).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 17:15:42 GMT
I wrote to the BCE within two days of the Provisional Recommendations being published.
My submission:
#. Rename "West Pennine Moors" as "Rossendale, Darwen, and Rivington" #. Rename "Blackpool South" as "Blackpool" #. Rename "Blackpool North and Fleetwood" as "Fleetwood and Bispham" #. Find a solution to the unfortunate split of Fishwick from Preston, though I don't offer anything specific. #. Rename "Lancaster" as "Lancaster and Wyre"
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 9, 2021 17:55:38 GMT
#. Find a solution to the unfortunate split of Fishwick from Preston, though I don't offer anything specific. The obvious solution would be to keep a couple of the Fulwood wards outside the Preston seat, but I'm not sure which would be the best choices. In my current draft I have Greyfriars and Sharoe Green.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 17:56:56 GMT
#. Find a solution to the unfortunate split of Fishwick from Preston, though I don't offer anything specific. The obvious solution would be to keep a couple of the Fulwood wards outside the Preston seat, but I'm not sure which would be the best choices. In my current draft I have Greyfriars and Sharoe Green. Those two would be fine, they're very "Fulwood".
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2021 18:16:54 GMT
I wrote to the BCE within two days of the Provisional Recommendations being published. My submission: #. Rename "West Pennine Moors" as "Rossendale, Darwen, and Rivington" #. Rename "Blackpool South" as "Blackpool" #. Rename "Blackpool North and Fleetwood" as "Fleetwood and Bispham" #. Find a solution to the unfortunate split of Fishwick from Preston, though I don't offer anything specific. #. Rename "Lancaster" as "Lancaster and Wyre" Regarding Preston, Ingol & Cottam ward can be substituted, especially since Ingol has its own parish council. Also regarding Lancaster (& Wyre) the split of Skerton must be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 9, 2021 18:20:32 GMT
#. Find a solution to the unfortunate split of Fishwick from Preston, though I don't offer anything specific. The obvious solution would be to keep a couple of the Fulwood wards outside the Preston seat, but I'm not sure which would be the best choices. In my current draft I have Greyfriars and Sharoe Green. That would also have the merit of shifting fewer voters than the BCE scheme, since Fishwick and Ribbleton are already in the Preston seat whereas Greyfriars and Sharoe Gn are not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 18:20:41 GMT
I wrote to the BCE within two days of the Provisional Recommendations being published. My submission: #. Rename "West Pennine Moors" as "Rossendale, Darwen, and Rivington" #. Rename "Blackpool South" as "Blackpool" #. Rename "Blackpool North and Fleetwood" as "Fleetwood and Bispham" #. Find a solution to the unfortunate split of Fishwick from Preston, though I don't offer anything specific. #. Rename "Lancaster" as "Lancaster and Wyre" Regarding Preston, Ingol & Cottam ward can be substituted, especially since Ingol has its own parish council. Also regarding Lancaster (& Wyre) the split of Skerton must be corrected. Skerton really should be sorted, I agree. I didn't mention it in my submission mind.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 9, 2021 19:01:19 GMT
I'm in the course of preparing a submission for the North West that addresses the Skerton issue (among many others). Based on the comments above by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ and YL I've just adjusted it to recommend keeping Fishwick and Ribbleton in Preston and omitting Fulwood.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 10, 2021 9:55:47 GMT
I'm in the course of preparing a submission for the North West that addresses the Skerton issue (among many others). Are you proposing something in Greater Manchester?
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 10, 2021 9:58:15 GMT
I'm in the course of preparing a submission for the North West that addresses the Skerton issue (among many others). Based on the comments above by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ and YL I've just adjusted it to recommend keeping Fishwick and Ribbleton in Preston and omitting Fulwood. Do you prefer their original Oldham arrangment of their alternative one?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2021 10:31:36 GMT
I'm in the course of preparing a submission for the North West that addresses the Skerton issue (among many others). Are you proposing something in Greater Manchester? Yes. If you look back miles upthread, way back on 28 Jan I posted a plan for the whole region and in Gtr Manchester (not necessarily elsewhere in the NW), that's what I'll be suggesting. Compared with the BCE scheme, it avoids putting boundaries through the middle of towns like Radcliffe, Leigh and Middleton, it avoids the 3-borough Failsworth horror and the split ward in Manchester, and unlike the BCE plan it keeps the current Bolton W and Stalybridge seats unchanged.
And in answer to rcronald , I'm not sure what the BCE's alternative Oldham was but the plan of 28 Jan is what I'll be suggesting (unless obviously someone here suggests something better).
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 10, 2021 11:10:05 GMT
Are you proposing something in Greater Manchester? Yes. If you look back miles upthread, way back on 28 Jan I posted a plan for the whole region and in Gtr Manchester (not necessarily elsewhere in the NW), that's what I'll be suggesting. Compared with the BCE scheme, it avoids putting boundaries through the middle of towns like Radcliffe, Leigh and Middleton, it avoids the 3-borough Failsworth horror and the split ward in Manchester, and unlike the BCE plan it keeps the current Bolton W and Stalybridge seats unchanged.
And in answer to rcronald , I'm not sure what the BCE's alternative Oldham was but the plan of 28 Jan is what I'll be suggesting (unless obviously someone here suggests something better).
I would probably agree with you on the nap except for pairing Middleton with Manchester and not Failworth & Chadderton + The wirral. In regard to the BCE's alternative Oldham- swaping Alexandra & St.Mary's for Royton North & South, which i think is much better then their current proposal (unchanged from 2010)
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 10, 2021 12:06:33 GMT
I hope this isn't too small to see properly but it's starting to look like a decent plan for the region. (I've left off the northern part to save space and because we seem to have something of a consensus).
I'm not going to go through the whole thing in detail because it's late and most of this has been seen before (and I confess I've stolen freely from many plans submitted upthread). There are a few points to mention, though, working roughly from north to south. In the Preston area, Mid Lancs takes the two wards approximating to Fulwood. If this is felt to be inappropriate, it can take Ingol and Lea instead. At the other end of Mid Lancs, note it includes Clitheroe. Also affecting Mid Lancs, the shape of the boundary with Burnley is to ensure that all three Whalley wards are included in the latter seat. After much chopping and changing I feel this is the best configuration in the Knowsley / St Helens / Warrington / Halton area. Rainhill is a better fit than it looks on the map. For names in this area I'd go with: St Helens N & Skelmersdale; St Helens S; Huyton & Prescot; Newton-le-Willows; Warrington; Widnes; Runcorn. In Cheshire, it works better if you cross the boundary between the two big UAs. This allows Macclesfield to be unchanged without mangling seats elsewhere. The Northwich seat is a huge improvement on the current Weaver Vale. In fact all the seats in this area are pretty tidy apart from the sprawling W Cheshire. Yes, it's a bit of a mess; but on the plus side, this arrangement allows a far better Chester seat. (If you feel it makes less of a mess W Cheshire can swap Tarporley and Bunbury wards with Northwich but I don't feel it's enough of an improvement to justify a third seat straddling the inner-Cheshire border.) Overall I'm not unhappy with this map. I'm not put off by the fact that such a high proportion of it is cogged from other posters.
Reposting islington's GM map for convenience.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2021 12:34:49 GMT
Andrew, thanks for this and yes, it's what I'll be proposing in Gtr Manchester; but not necessarily in the rest of the region.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 13, 2021 16:41:00 GMT
Any thoughts on this arrangement for north-east Greater Manchester? Charleston ward in Manchester is split, with the eastern, more Moston aligned, parts in seat 17. Plus points: - Middleton not split; indeed no town in Rochdale borough split other than Rochdale itself, and that only two ways. - Stalybridge not split - No three borough seat, and the Manchester boundary breached only twice Things I'm not so sure about: - Dukinfield still split, unlike in the BCE's map - I'm not convinced "Oldham South & Droylsden" (seat 18) is a great arrangement, and I know andrewteale argues against reviving Littleborough & Saddleworth. - Generally it's quite radical, with the Tameside and Oldham seats all heavily redrawn. It's possible to rearrange things in Oldham and Rochdale to retain Oldham East & Saddleworth unchanged, with four Rochdale wards joining the Chadderton/Royton seat, but this seems to give a messy boundary in Rochdale.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 16, 2021 16:15:50 GMT
Any thoughts on this arrangement for north-east Greater Manchester? Charleston ward in Manchester is split, with the eastern, more Moston aligned, parts in seat 17. Plus points: - Middleton not split; indeed no town in Rochdale borough split other than Rochdale itself, and that only two ways. - Stalybridge not split - No three borough seat, and the Manchester boundary breached only twice Things I'm not so sure about: - Dukinfield still split, unlike in the BCE's map - I'm not convinced "Oldham South & Droylsden" (seat 18) is a great arrangement, and I know andrewteale argues against reviving Littleborough & Saddleworth. - Generally it's quite radical, with the Tameside and Oldham seats all heavily redrawn. It's possible to rearrange things in Oldham and Rochdale to retain Oldham East & Saddleworth unchanged, with four Rochdale wards joining the Chadderton/Royton seat, but this seems to give a messy boundary in Rochdale. Sorry, YL, it has its plus points, such as reducing the crossings of the Manchester city boundary, but I still prefer the Gtr Manchester plan that was posted just upthread. It ticks most of the same boxes, in terms of not splitting towns, and it's a lot less radical.
What this has prompted me to think about, though, is whether to exchange Dukinfield and Mossley wards. The advantage of doing this is that it gets the whole town of Dukinfield in the same seat, without splitting Stalybridge; but on the other hand, it means that Stalybridge & Hyde is no longer unchanged. There's also the point that Mossley has better links with Stalybridge than with AuL.
|
|