Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2021 19:21:31 GMT
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? There are mountains in the way and one of England's most remote passes.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 28, 2021 11:58:27 GMT
I mean, given where carlton43 was domiciled until recently its even more amazing that he felt the need to ask such a question. And of course this proposed seat now straddles the two future unitary authorities, yet another reason to dump it.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 28, 2021 12:03:40 GMT
I mean, given where carlton43 was domiciled until recently its even more amazing that he felt the need to ask such a question. And of course this proposed seat now straddles the two future unitary authorities, yet another reason to dump it. On Ross terms, it is not big, not remote and the roads whilst a bit difficult in places are much shorter and less difficult. Why two unitary authorities in an area smaller than Ross and smaller than North Riding?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 28, 2021 12:05:57 GMT
Yes, but I'm sure you would agree having a constituency as huge and sprawling as Ross etc - whilst unavoidable in that instance - is not ideal. Such things should be avoided if they can, and in this instance they certainly could be.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 28, 2021 13:21:14 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. My submission has gone in, BCE-71648. It's all Greater Manchester apart from a snide remark about the West Pennine Moors seat. Happy to distribute on request.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 28, 2021 20:34:21 GMT
I mean, given where carlton43 was domiciled until recently its even more amazing that he felt the need to ask such a question. And of course this proposed seat now straddles the two future unitary authorities, yet another reason to dump it. It seems you can draw three (small) seats within the new West Cumbria, but East Cumbria and the Lancashire crossing don't work well. Eden district, Kendal and the Kendal Rural ward needed to connect them only leaves room for one more ward, so Windermere/Bowness/Ambleside won't all fit and have to somehow go with Barrow or Morecambe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 21:20:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 28, 2021 21:43:29 GMT
Having some sort of sprawling seat in Cumbria is probably inevitable, but putting Alston and Millom in the same constituency is pretty radical.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Jul 28, 2021 21:47:29 GMT
I'd be interested to know what The Bishop thinks of being in the same seat as Alston (if I've remembered correctly where he lives). Apart from that I think this is a good map, and it may even be the least bad option. (I will be proposing something slightly different, though.)
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 28, 2021 22:02:53 GMT
Yes, but I'm sure you would agree having a constituency as huge and sprawling as Ross etc - whilst unavoidable in that instance - is not ideal. Such things should be avoided if they can, and in this instance they certainly could be. I know what you mean and I know that a majority agree with that opinion, but I think Ross works well as a constituency, because it is very homogenous and everyone is used to big distances for all but the essentially very local matters, and electors don't need to know each other, to visit each other or to live anywhere near each other; those are not features of any concern at all to most electors.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 28, 2021 22:06:29 GMT
I proposed something similar to that in the last review (on here I mean - I didn't submit it). I don't recall The Bishop 's reaction but I know Chris Whiteside was pretty scathing. I'll see if I can dig it up. I'm all in favour of this and encouraged that this is proposed by someone local
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 28, 2021 22:18:09 GMT
Must be on the 'old' site
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 29, 2021 11:32:03 GMT
Must be on the 'old' site It was indeed. And no, I wasn't terribly impressed at the time either. I do admit that doing Cumbria sensibly under the new rules is not easy, though.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Aug 1, 2021 20:46:14 GMT
I mean, given where carlton43 was domiciled until recently its even more amazing that he felt the need to ask such a question. And of course this proposed seat now straddles the two future unitary authorities, yet another reason to dump it. Will all due respect, you know as well as I do that it would be extremely difficult if not mathematically impossible to produce a set of boundaries for the seats in Cumbria which do not include at least one seat which straddles the boundary between the two new unitary authorities. Therefore that is not a valid reason to object to any given proposal, as the same objection would apply to any possible alternative. But clearly, any proposal including a seat which stretches right the way from the Solway coast - or worse, the coast near Millom, let alone both - to Alston does not just straddle the boundary between the new authorities but does so in a particularly unfortunate way.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Aug 1, 2021 21:06:53 GMT
I mean, given where carlton43 was domiciled until recently its even more amazing that he felt the need to ask such a question. And of course this proposed seat now straddles the two future unitary authorities, yet another reason to dump it. It seems you can draw three (small) seats within the new West Cumbria, but East Cumbria and the Lancashire crossing don't work well. Eden district, Kendal and the Kendal Rural ward needed to connect them only leaves room for one more ward, so Windermere/Bowness/Ambleside won't all fit and have to somehow go with Barrow or Morecambe. There is certainly no good way to draw three seats within the new "West Cumbria" local authority (I doubt if it will be called that, by the way) if you can do it at all, which I don't think you can. If you build a seat around Carlisle, and then have a second one with the rest of Carlisle and most of Allerdale, what's left of the new authority presently in the borough of Copeland and the rest of Allerdale is not going to be big enough for a new parliamentary consituency, and will need either to extend East and include some of South Lakeland (as per the Boundary Commision proposals) or extend South into Barrow and Furness - which might make the constituency which will have to be built around Barrow look very strange. Either way it straddles the two new authorities. Alternatively if you start at the South end of the new authority with Copeland and build a seat which takes in more of Allerdale until it reaches the minimum size, you then have a new Workington/Allerdale seat which would have to take in much more of the present City of Carlisle than just Dalston, and you would be left with a Carlisle seat which did not include substantial parts of the City of Carlisle and did have to take in a significant part of Eden - and which straddles the boundary betwen the two new local authorities. If you start by trying to create a West Cumbria seat you will end up with the same problem.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Aug 1, 2021 21:10:44 GMT
Having some sort of sprawling seat in Cumbria is probably inevitable, but putting Alston and Millom in the same constituency is pretty radical. I fear the word I would use is not "radical" but "preposterous."
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Aug 1, 2021 21:31:20 GMT
I proposed something similar to that in the last review (on here I mean - I didn't submit it). I don't recall The Bishop 's reaction but I know Chris Whiteside was pretty scathing. I'll see if I can dig it up. I'm all in favour of this and encouraged that this is proposed by someone local You did, and I'm afraid I was, and I fear my reaction to Alastair's proposal is equally negative. The idea of a seat which includes the coast around Millom, loops behind Whitehaven and Workington to reach the Solway coast, and then extends east to Alston is so bizarre that polite words almost fail me. As anyone who has driven from Millom to Maryport and thence to Alston will understand. A few months before the pandemic a clash of dates forced me to withdraw at a couple of weeks' notice from an engagement in Millom and a colleague from Alston very kindly covered for me. He and his wife ended up having to make an overnight stay in Millom to do it, such is the length of the journey (I was very grateful to him and the people who run the organisation concerned made a special point of praising him for a contribution above and beyond normal expectations for picking the duty up.) As the Bishop correctly says, it is pretty difficult to come up with a good proposal for Cumbria under the numbers we have to work with for this review. I have yet to see one which I think is better than the Boundary Commission proposals, imperfect as they are. The "Copeland and the Western Lakes" proposal this time is significantly less awful than Alistair's proposed seat stretching from Millom to the Solway coast and east to Alston, and slightly less awful than the "Copeland and Windermere" proposal I opposed when it was first put forward ten years ago. The reason the new proposed seat is better than "Whitehaven and Windermere" is that this time it includes a ring of interconnected communities around the lakes and mountains, so you can travel round it through communities which do relate to one another, unlike the former proposal where getting from one part to the other meant a two hour long detour miles outside the constituency or driving over Hardknott Pass!
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Aug 1, 2021 22:05:04 GMT
It seems you can draw three (small) seats within the new West Cumbria, but East Cumbria and the Lancashire crossing don't work well. Eden district, Kendal and the Kendal Rural ward needed to connect them only leaves room for one more ward, so Windermere/Bowness/Ambleside won't all fit and have to somehow go with Barrow or Morecambe. There is certainly no good way to draw three seats within the new "West Cumbria" local authority (I doubt if it will be called that, by the way)... Cheshire West and Chester says "be careful what you wish for".
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Aug 2, 2021 6:45:38 GMT
It seems you can draw three (small) seats within the new West Cumbria, but East Cumbria and the Lancashire crossing don't work well. Eden district, Kendal and the Kendal Rural ward needed to connect them only leaves room for one more ward, so Windermere/Bowness/Ambleside won't all fit and have to somehow go with Barrow or Morecambe. There is certainly no good way to draw three seats within the new "West Cumbria" local authority (I doubt if it will be called that, by the way) if you can do it at all, which I don't think you can. If you build a seat around Carlisle, and then have a second one with the rest of Carlisle and most of Allerdale, what's left of the new authority presently in the borough of Copeland and the rest of Allerdale is not going to be big enough for a new parliamentary consituency, and will need either to extend East and include some of South Lakeland (as per the Boundary Commision proposals) or extend South into Barrow and Furness - which might make the constituency which will have to be built around Barrow look very strange. Either way it straddles the two new authorities. Alternatively if you start at the South end of the new authority with Copeland and build a seat which takes in more of Allerdale until it reaches the minimum size, you then have a new Workington/Allerdale seat which would have to take in much more of the present City of Carlisle than just Dalston, and you would be left with a Carlisle seat which did not include substantial parts of the City of Carlisle and did have to take in a significant part of Eden - and which straddles the boundary betwen the two new local authorities. If you start by trying to create a West Cumbria seat you will end up with the same problem. You can do it: 1. Whitehaven & Cockermouth 70681 2. Workington 70461 3. Carlisle 70129 4. Westmorland & Penrith 76208 (as per BCE) 5. Barrow & Furness 74699 (as per BCE) 6. Morecambe & Windermere 74907 (is this jumping out of the Whitehaven frying pan into the Morecambe fire?) 7. Lancaster 74276 (nb includes Heysham) (Not intended as a particularly serious proposal. I don't know how easy it would be to absorb the extra Wyre wards in the rest of the region.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 2, 2021 8:04:33 GMT
I made a substantial submission in respect of the North West but I left Cumbria out of it the grounds that although I think the the BCE proposals are a bit of a mess, (a) it's largely a self-contained mess without much impact on the region as a whole, and (b) I was sure there would be a lot of local representations.
But if I had submitted a plan, it would have been this.
(If anyone wants to pick this up and run with it, be my guest but the clock is ticking.)
|
|