|
Post by islington on Aug 2, 2021 9:08:48 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. Won't they call it 'Cumberland'? I know it's not a exact fit but good enough for government work, surely?
'Greater Westmorland' for the other, perhaps? (This is not an entirely serious suggestion.)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 2, 2021 11:13:49 GMT
"Westmorland and Lonsdale" would be pretty accurate surely?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 2, 2021 12:48:43 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.)
I have no objection to your big brown Cumberland seat or others on the Workington/Millom across to Alston spread. Looks OK to me as there is a general identity of area and interest, better so than in many seats. And, frankly, we are not asking electors to do more than vote are we? They are not required to travel from Alston to Millom ever! Any more than Skipton people have to go to Ripon, or Workop people to Retford, or Scarborough people to Whitby. It is only about equality of the value of the damed vote. Get over yourselves! Ordinary people just do not give a damn about any of this nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 13:15:40 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.)
I have no objection to your big brown Cumberland seat or others on the Workington/Millom across to Alston spread. Looks OK to me as there is a general identity of area and interest, better so than in many seats. And, frankly, we are not asking electors to do more than vote are we? They are not required to travel from Alston to Millom ever! Any more than Skipton people have to go to Ripon, or Workop people to Retford, or Scarborough people to Whitby. It is only about equality of the value of the damed vote. Get over yourselves! Ordinary people just do not give a damn about any of this nonsense. Unless voters want to know if its a stitch up that Place X has been added to Place Z. Voters can be very savvy, and parochial, and all sorts of things. And Cumbrian voters will know of any mountains in the middle of constituencies and rightly ask, "how is my MP going to canvas this, with an helicopter?!"
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 2, 2021 13:34:50 GMT
I have no objection to your big brown Cumberland seat or others on the Workington/Millom across to Alston spread. Looks OK to me as there is a general identity of area and interest, better so than in many seats. And, frankly, we are not asking electors to do more than vote are we? They are not required to travel from Alston to Millom ever! Any more than Skipton people have to go to Ripon, or Workop people to Retford, or Scarborough people to Whitby. It is only about equality of the value of the damed vote. Get over yourselves! Ordinary people just do not give a damn about any of this nonsense. Unless voters want to know if its a stitch up that Place X has been added to Place Z. Voters can be very savvy, and parochial, and all sorts of things. And Cumbrian voters will know of any mountains in the middle of constituencies and rightly ask, "how is my MP going to canvas this, with an helicopter?!" The voters are about 30% 'Don't Give a Tuppeny Damn What It Is Called Or Where The Boundaries Are And Usually Never Vote'; 60% 'Have Vague Interest In Boundaries And Name And Sometime-to-Usually Vote Despite General Indifference'; and 9% express 'Close To Significant Interest But Still Not Very Excerised By Any Of It'; and 1% 'Turn Of The Vapours And Pretend Pitchforks Over Nitpicking Nonesense'. The latter 10% should generally be ignored altogether. The 90% won't know or care that they have been ignored. The ONLY thing that matters here is convenience to mapping seats of equal size in votes. All the rest is tribal agonizing over projected results and nerdish pretence that the drawing up matters AT ALL to anyone. It doesn't and you all know it doesn't matter one whit. Equal size of vote matters. Nothing else at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 14:50:28 GMT
Carlton, this forum was created for mostly psephology and nerdy number crunching reasons. That's why it matters about the anorak-y side of things. General Discussion is "below the fold" for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 2, 2021 16:01:29 GMT
Carlton, this forum was created for mostly psephology and nerdy number crunching reasons. That's why it matters about the anorak-y side of things. General Discussion is "below the fold" for a reason. That does not make my comment any less true nor is it inappropriate to this site. No one has ever prsented any case that makes sense about a real and actual need to worry about mountains or rivers or rail lines or main roads, because you all know deep down that none of it matters at all to anyone. This is about voting and the equality of representation. It has NOTHING to do with mobility or convenience or local authorities or counties or anything other than reprsentation in the HOC with equality of such representation. All the rest is for the birds and the nerds. Give me three valid important reasons to the average voter or to the effective fair representation of such a voter other than simple map and very close voter totals in every seat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 16:03:24 GMT
Carlton, this forum was created for mostly psephology and nerdy number crunching reasons. That's why it matters about the anorak-y side of things. General Discussion is "below the fold" for a reason. That does not make my comment any less true nor is it inappropriate to this site. No one has ever prsented any case that makes sense about a real and actual need to worry about mountains or rivers or rail lines or main roads, because you all know deep down that none of it matters at all to anyone. This is about voting and the equality of representation. It has NOTHING to do with mobility or convenience or local authorities or counties or anything ither than reprsentation in the HOC with equality of such representation. All the rest is for the birds and the nerds. Give me three valid important reasons to the average voter or to the effective fair representation of such a voter other than simple map and very close voter totals in every seat. I'm taking "birds and the nerds" for my memoirs!
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 2, 2021 17:01:27 GMT
I have found a solution re: Cheshire, Merseyside and Lancashire which avoids splitting the City of Chester, ensures that more Lancaster constituencies stay (largely) intact, avoids splitting Skerton or Westmorland, and avoids changing any of the 3 Sefton constituencies, but it is not pretty.
It involves:
1. Two messy and sprawling seats called Neston (which actually stretches into most of Eddisbury to avoid splitting the town of Ellesmere Port in addition to not splitting Chester in half) and Vale of Preston (succeeding Ribble Valley but also stretching more into South Ribble and losing Clitheroe). Cockermouth (covering most of Allerdale and villages north and west of Penrith) is not that good either. On the plus side, a coherent Northwich & Winsford seat is created. 2. Splitting up Pendle to form Burnley & Brierfield and Clitheroe & Colne. 3. Two peripheral West Lancashire wards in a successor to St Helens North (Newton-le-Willows) and an orphan West Lancashire ward in South Ribble's successor (Leyland), and an orphan Fylde ward in Vale of Preston (necessary because of electoral quota requirements). 4. Keeping the awkward proposed Liverpool Norris Green seat in a way, in the form of Walton & Kirkby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 18:30:35 GMT
Someone here tried a "Vale of Preston" seat before. It's really not a term or phrase that is ever used in the local area. If it succeeds Ribble Valley, call it Ribble Valley.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 2, 2021 18:32:26 GMT
You mean something like this?
Or this?
Or this? (All from my North West submission.)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Aug 2, 2021 18:36:10 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.)
This is pretty similar to what I submitted. However, I thought it was best to keep Grange and Cartmel together, so I accepted the BCE's Barrow seat, and I also ended up going with a different arrangement in Eden, though I mentioned some alternatives including that one in my write-up.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 2, 2021 18:40:52 GMT
You mean something like this?
Or this?
Or this? (All from my North West submission.)
I do indeed. You also need to re-jig the Cumbria/North Lancashire seats of course; I did mention not splitting Westmorland and not splitting Skerton.. Also to make the numbers work you do need to add the other part of Rawtenstall into Rossendale & Darwen and the South Blackburn & Lower Darwen ward to Blackburn.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 2, 2021 18:43:58 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.)
Grange and Cartmel must not be placed in separate constituencies under any circumstances due to the way the road/rail links work. You also need to add most of Bowness & Levens ward (but not of course Lake Windermere and the small town of Bowness & Windermere; this is partly why South Lakeland should have switched from the by-thirds system to full council elections) into Morecambe & Lonsdale, although this does mean Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale has to be added to the Westmorland & Penrith seat in this plan.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 2, 2021 18:53:48 GMT
You mean something like this?
Or this?
Or this? (All from my North West submission.)
I do indeed. You also need to re-jig the Cumbria/North Lancashire seats of course; I did mention not splitting Westmorland and not splitting Skerton.. Also to make the numbers work you do need to add the other part of Rawtenstall into Rossendale & Darwen and the South Blackburn & Lower Darwen ward to Blackburn. No, numbers all fine. Blackburn 70586, R&D 74593, Accrington 71145. All unchanged apart the the name of the last one, and ward realignment of the other two.
(You made me check though.)
I did rejig Skerton but I thought it was enough maps. Cumbria I'm leaving to sort itself out.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 2, 2021 20:31:52 GMT
Someone here tried a "Vale of Preston" seat before. It's really not a term or phrase that is ever used in the local area. If it succeeds Ribble Valley, call it Ribble Valley. Greenhert seems to be used "Vale of" to mean "Outer". I'm not sure why.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 2, 2021 23:07:25 GMT
Ooh, in all these months putting rural West Lancashire in with the northern part of St Helens MB never occurred to me. islington might be onto something there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2021 3:06:07 GMT
Ooh, in all these months putting rural West Lancashire in with the northern part of St Helens MB never occurred to me. islington might be onto something there! It's a very radical suggestion though, given St Helens is easily dealt with and West Lancs. doesn't need much of a significant redraw. I can't see the BCE being that invested if it doesn't look like minimal change.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Aug 3, 2021 6:54:46 GMT
Ooh, in all these months putting rural West Lancashire in with the northern part of St Helens MB never occurred to me. islington might be onto something there! It's a very radical suggestion though, given St Helens is easily dealt with and West Lancs. doesn't need much of a significant redraw. I can't see the BCE being that invested if it doesn't look like minimal change. It avoids the meddling with Sefton.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 3, 2021 22:14:26 GMT
'Merseyside' north of the river can be treated alone for 11 seats, which is what I've done even though in principle I'd have no problem considering it alongside the Lancashire CC area.
The bit where you do need to cross a boundary is more Deeside than Merseyside anyway.
|
|