|
Post by pepperminttea on Jul 16, 2021 19:21:35 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. I actually really like this map, better than what I came up with. A lot of the constituencies have been radically redrawn yes, but in a way that is very coherent.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jul 16, 2021 19:28:34 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. That seat from your plan containing Denton and a random tail into Manchester City proper looks pretty radical to me . The connections between the two parts of the seat are very poor.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 16, 2021 21:12:03 GMT
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. That seat from your plan containing Denton and a random tail into Manchester City proper looks pretty radical to me . The connections between the two parts of the seat are very poor. You're absolutely right. There's nothing except the main A57 trunk road, one of the principal arterial roads out of Manchester.
Not to mention that Denton was previously in a Gorton seat 1885 - 1918 and 1955 - 1983.
Incidentally, I can't claim credit for this particular seat - I adopted it from someone else's plan.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jul 19, 2021 13:06:25 GMT
A thread:
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 19, 2021 13:10:31 GMT
With all due respect to Tim Farron (and I have lots of it) his constituency includes the entire Lancashire border and therefore it doesn’t matter how much he moans about it, he knows full well his constituency is going to be torn apart no matter what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2021 4:01:10 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. I am going to send a follow-up submission where I suggest just this. If you swap F&F/Rib and SG/Greyf both constituencies remain in quota so it's a fair swap.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
|
Post by YL on Jul 27, 2021 7:01:20 GMT
With all due respect to Tim Farron (and I have lots of it) his constituency includes the entire Lancashire border and therefore it doesn’t matter how much he moans about it, he knows full well his constituency is going to be torn apart no matter what. True, but the main aspect of it he's complaining about there is a consequence of the decision to try to maintain separate Whitehaven and Workington seats, not the need to cross the Lancashire border. If you put Whitehaven and Workington together it's easy enough to keep Windermere etc. and Kendal in the same seat. The other things he mentions can also be avoided by putting Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale in the cross-county seat rather than (part of) Bowness & Levens.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 27, 2021 7:45:24 GMT
With all due respect to Tim Farron (and I have lots of it) his constituency includes the entire Lancashire border and therefore it doesn’t matter how much he moans about it, he knows full well his constituency is going to be torn apart no matter what. True, but the main aspect of it he's complaining about there is a consequence of the decision to try to maintain separate Whitehaven and Workington seats, not the need to cross the Lancashire border. If you put Whitehaven and Workington together it's easy enough to keep Windermere etc. and Kendal in the same seat. The other things he mentions can also be avoided by putting Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale in the cross-county seat rather than (part of) Bowness & Levens. but, Allerdale is within range for a full seat, it therefore doesn’t make much sense to split Allerdale except an orphan ward, you also can’t split Barrow in Furness and therefore the only option is to create an inconvenient seat with Windermere & Whitehaven.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
|
Post by YL on Jul 27, 2021 8:07:48 GMT
True, but the main aspect of it he's complaining about there is a consequence of the decision to try to maintain separate Whitehaven and Workington seats, not the need to cross the Lancashire border. If you put Whitehaven and Workington together it's easy enough to keep Windermere etc. and Kendal in the same seat. The other things he mentions can also be avoided by putting Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale in the cross-county seat rather than (part of) Bowness & Levens. but, Allerdale is within range for a full seat, it therefore doesn’t make much sense to split Allerdale except an orphan ward, you also can’t split Barrow in Furness and therefore the only option is to create an inconvenient seat with Windermere & Whitehaven. But they have split Allerdale (and not just an orphan ward, not that I see why that would make it better) and even if they hadn't I don't see why that's worse than stretching over the fells to grab a bit of South Lakeland, which is split into four by the initial proposals.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 27, 2021 8:32:22 GMT
but, Allerdale is within range for a full seat, it therefore doesn’t make much sense to split Allerdale except an orphan ward, you also can’t split Barrow in Furness and therefore the only option is to create an inconvenient seat with Windermere & Whitehaven. But they have split Allerdale (and not just an orphan ward, not that I see why that would make it better) and even if they hadn't I don't see why that's worse than stretching over the fells to grab a bit of South Lakeland, which is split into four by the initial proposals. But South Lakelands would split into 3 at minimum so the difference is not that big.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 27, 2021 8:57:56 GMT
I remain to be convinced that the Allerdale local authority is such a natural unit that it can't be split between constituencies, given that it's been split between different seats since at least 1885. It's not especially uncommon for districts which could have a seat to themselves to be split because it allows better neighbouring seats to be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 27, 2021 9:12:36 GMT
I remain to be convinced that the Allerdale local authority is such a natural unit that it can't be split between constituencies, given that it's been split between different seats since at least 1885. It's not especially uncommon for districts which could have a seat to themselves to be split because it allows better neighbouring seats to be drawn. But if you insist of having Windermere with Kendall then the other seats would turn out ugly (if not outside the legal range) regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2021 9:22:44 GMT
We don't know if Tim is completely unaware of how many seats Cumbria is entitled to, if he genuinely believes that his seat can remain unchanged etc. I assume some MPs are more aware than others about the technicalities of all this. (If they all were, we wouldn't have such clumsy legislation and funky processes!)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
|
Post by YL on Jul 27, 2021 10:05:47 GMT
We don't know if Tim is completely unaware of how many seats Cumbria is entitled to, if he genuinely believes that his seat can remain unchanged etc. I assume some MPs are more aware than others about the technicalities of all this. (If they all were, we wouldn't have such clumsy legislation and funky processes!) Well, yes, it's not clear from his tweets whether he has an alternative in mind. However I suspect the NW Lib Dems do, though I doubt it's possible to get a notionally Lib Dem seat.
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 27, 2021 10:40:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 27, 2021 14:03:53 GMT
I remain to be convinced that the Allerdale local authority is such a natural unit that it can't be split between constituencies, given that it's been split between different seats since at least 1885. It's not especially uncommon for districts which could have a seat to themselves to be split because it allows better neighbouring seats to be drawn. But if you insist of having Windermere with Kendall then the other seats would turn out ugly (if not outside the legal range) regardless. Yes, but if you put Windermere with Whitehaven then that's also ugly. There isn't a nice, neat solution here (or if there is it requires pairing Cumbria with the north-east, which the BCE would never go for.) The aim is to find the least ugly solution and I don't think it's unreasonable on the face of it to say that it's preferable to have an east-west seat in the north of the country rather than the south.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2021 15:19:17 GMT
Just to say that my NW submission has now gone in and is BCE-70325.
(Can't help thinking that 70325 is comfortably within the permitted range.)
I left Cumbria alone not because I like the BCE plan but because it's pretty much self-contained and I'm guessing there will be hosts of local representations.
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 27, 2021 15:23:30 GMT
Just to say that my NW submission has now gone in and is BCE-70325. (Can't help thinking that 70325 is comfortably within the permitted range.) I left Cumbria alone not because I like the BCE plan but because it's pretty much self-contained and I'm guessing there will be hosts of local representations. Are submissions available online as people submit or do they publish after the closing data for counter proposals/ comments?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2021 15:31:50 GMT
Just to say that my NW submission has now gone in and is BCE-70325. (Can't help thinking that 70325 is comfortably within the permitted range.) I left Cumbria alone not because I like the BCE plan but because it's pretty much self-contained and I'm guessing there will be hosts of local representations. Are submissions available online as people submit or do they publish after the closing data for counter proposals/ comments? I presume they won't be published for some time but I'm happy to share mine by email with any posters here willing to reciprocate.
I'd suggest exchanging email details via Messages if anyone wants to take me up on this.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,299
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 27, 2021 15:52:51 GMT
But if you insist of having Windermere with Kendall then the other seats would turn out ugly (if not outside the legal range) regardless. Yes, but if you put Windermere with Whitehaven then that's also ugly. There isn't a nice, neat solution here (or if there is it requires pairing Cumbria with the north-east, which the BCE would never go for.) The aim is to find the least ugly solution and I don't think it's unreasonable on the face of it to say that it's preferable to have an east-west seat in the north of the country rather than the south. Why is Windermere and Whitehaven 'ugly'? And why is East-West better in the north?
|
|