Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2022 21:26:54 GMT
BBC News
Skip to content
Lancashire MPs disappointed by revised boundary changes
9 November 2022
Two Conservative MPs whose constituencies would be altered under a planned shake of England's electoral map have said they are "disappointed" by the revised boundary changes.
The Boundary Commission proposes a single new seat in Lancashire of Pendle and Clitheroe, including Whalley.
Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans said the "major" changes to his constituency "carved up communities".
Andrew Stephenson, MP for Pendle, said he was "surprised" the area was split.
Boundary commission officials are redrawing constituency boundaries to ensure between 69,724 and 77,062 people live in each one, with the new map to be used at the next general election, expected in 2024.
Previous proposals for the creation of a Burnley and Bacup constituency would be abandoned, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
The Hyndburn seat would no longer extend to include three wards from Ribble Valley, but keeps Haslingden.
Mr Evans said he was "very disappointed", adding: "These are major changes which carve up communities in the Ribble Valley and I do hope that the commission looks again."
"It would be better to keep the whole local authority area together," he added.
Boundary changes would see the seat of Pendle redrawn, taking out Brierfield and Reedley
Mr Stephenson said he was "disappointed" that the revised plan took Brierfield and Reedley out of the Pendle constituency.
He added: "Since 2010, I have worked tirelessly to champion the £32m redevelopment of Brierfield Mills.
"I supported the boundary commission's initial proposals which kept all of Pendle together and am therefore surprised and disappointed."
Under the plans, the Rossendale and Darwen constituency would gain all of the Blackburn South and Lower Darwen ward.
A previous proposal to heavily redraw it and rename it West Pennine Moors and include Haslingden has been scrapped.
Andrew Stephenson says his constituency of Pendle should be kept together
Rossendale and Darwen MP, Jake Berry said he was pleased the commission had "seen sense", adding: "Residents from Lower Darwen made it very clear that they were part of Darwen and not Blackburn."
Tim Bowden, secretary to the Boundary Commission for England, said it did its best to consider "different factors", including geographical features, schools, local bus routes and GP surgeries, when redrawing the boundaries.
He said constituency names attracted "passionate views" and it would listen to people's feelings.
A consultation on the latest plans closes on 5 December with boundary changes due to be finalised in July.
Presentational grey line
© 2022 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 10, 2022 21:35:41 GMT
He added: "Since 2010, I have worked tirelessly to champion the £32m redevelopment of Brierfield Mills” Andrew Stephenson I find it funny how boundary changes are used as an opportunity for affected MPs to big-up their local reputations, even shoehorn them in like this. How would a boundary change jeopardise the redevelopment of a site? Why couldn’t the new MP, of whichever party, do the same? Unless the boundary change moved it into a different country. You just pass the casework files onto the succeeding MP’s team. And if it moves to a neighbouring one and it’s a shared community asset you could work together and have joint photo-ops at the site… |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 10, 2022 21:54:10 GMT
This isn't the only BBC article to describe the terms of the Review in such a way. Their politics team can't even get the basics right these days. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 11, 2022 10:03:21 GMT
Some real improvements here, especially in the east Lancs area; and Cumbria is better.
On the other hand, the ward split in Sefton breaches the BCE's own guidelines; and in Leigh, whilst achieving a big improvement over the initial plans, they have again taken account of wards decided after the deadline, which I think is really straining against the statutory rules.
Tatton extends into 3 UAs (or is this OK now?); and Huyton, Chester, Middleton, Radcliffe are still needlessly divided.
I'm not sure whether I was namechecked but I see they've adopted my Tameside plan, including the linking of Gorton and Denton.
The Manchester area generally is better, but I still think it cries out for a rotation of wards to put Harpurhey into Manchester C, W Middleton and N Middleton into Manchester Blackley, the two Royton wards into Heywood, and the Failsworths into Oldham E.
This would mean that Oldham E & Royton would no longer be unchanged, but on the other hand almost all of Middleton would be united and Manchester C would no longer extend outside the city boundary. But it's what I suggested before, so I don't suppose the Commission will want to look at it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Nov 11, 2022 18:13:29 GMT
I'm not sure whether I was namechecked but I see they've adopted my Tameside plan, including the linking of Gorton and Denton. The Manchester area generally is better, but I still think it cries out for a rotation of wards to put Harpurhey into Manchester C, W Middleton and N Middleton into Manchester Blackley, the two Royton wards into Heywood, and the Failsworths into Oldham E. There was a comment earlier about how it would make much more sense for at least one Trafford ward (Clifford, to be replaced by Old Trafford in May, the obvious one) to be in Manchester Central. By itself, that makes perfect sense.* I guess that all Trafford constituencies could be kept without alteration was just too good an opportunity to miss, the alternative knock-on effects would have been very messy. I have to say that Gorton & Denton goes a bit awry by the inclusion of Burnage, which means the boundary stretches almost to the centre of Didsbury. Very disconnected from Gorton, let alone Denton. (I don't know whether or not that part of it matches your suggestions.) *I'm pretty sure the reason the Trafford boundary ever went where it does, in that part of town, is because of the plans for an arterial "Altrincham bypass" motorway, which would have turned east around Stretford and then crashed through to reach Deansgate. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 11, 2022 21:03:13 GMT
Having just seen that there’s a “Lewisham West and East Dulwich”, I see nothing wrong with Chester South and South Cheshire at all. It can’t be one rule for London and another for the north west!
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 12, 2022 14:05:11 GMT
Some real improvements here, especially in the east Lancs area; and Cumbria is better. On the other hand, the ward split in Sefton breaches the BCE's own guidelines; and in Leigh, whilst achieving a big improvement over the initial plans, they have again taken account of wards decided after the deadline, which I think is really straining against the statutory rules. Tatton extends into 3 UAs (or is this OK now?); and Huyton, Chester, Middleton, Radcliffe are still needlessly divided. I'm not sure whether I was namechecked but I see they've adopted my Tameside plan, including the linking of Gorton and Denton. The Manchester area generally is better, but I still think it cries out for a rotation of wards to put Harpurhey into Manchester C, W Middleton and N Middleton into Manchester Blackley, the two Royton wards into Heywood, and the Failsworths into Oldham E. This would mean that Oldham E & Royton would no longer be unchanged, but on the other hand almost all of Middleton would be united and Manchester C would no longer extend outside the city boundary. But it's what I suggested before, so I don't suppose the Commission will want to look at it again. Cheshire is divided, sure, but that's necessarily not needlessly. All the locals who didn't want that to happen couldn't come up with a solution to keep it together, recognising that the only alternative of putting part of the Wirral in a seat stretching to the Shropshire border was bonkers (as I repeatedly said on here, who knew local knowledge could be useful?). |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 12, 2022 17:22:40 GMT
I'm not sure whether I was namechecked but I see they've adopted my Tameside plan, including the linking of Gorton and Denton. The Manchester area generally is better, but I still think it cries out for a rotation of wards to put Harpurhey into Manchester C, W Middleton and N Middleton into Manchester Blackley, the two Royton wards into Heywood, and the Failsworths into Oldham E. There was a comment earlier about how it would make much more sense for at least one Trafford ward (Clifford, to be replaced by Old Trafford in May, the obvious one) to be in Manchester Central. By itself, that makes perfect sense.* I guess that all Trafford constituencies could be kept without alteration was just too good an opportunity to miss, the alternative knock-on effects would have been very messy. I have to say that Gorton & Denton goes a bit awry by the inclusion of Burnage, which means the boundary stretches almost to the centre of Didsbury. Very disconnected from Gorton, let alone Denton. (I don't know whether or not that part of it matches your suggestions.) *I'm pretty sure the reason the Trafford boundary ever went where it does, in that part of town, is because of the plans for an arterial "Altrincham bypass" motorway, which would have turned east around Stretford and then crashed through to reach Deansgate. I don't think the Manchester city boundary at that point has changed since the 19th century which is long before such a motorway would have been thought of. The old Stretford council had the huge financial advantage of the business rates generated by Trafford Park. Manchester Corporation had the chance to buy Trafford Park when it originally came up for sale, and they blew it. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Nov 12, 2022 17:53:57 GMT
There was a comment earlier about how it would make much more sense for at least one Trafford ward (Clifford, to be replaced by Old Trafford in May, the obvious one) to be in Manchester Central. By itself, that makes perfect sense.* I guess that all Trafford constituencies could be kept without alteration was just too good an opportunity to miss, the alternative knock-on effects would have been very messy. I have to say that Gorton & Denton goes a bit awry by the inclusion of Burnage, which means the boundary stretches almost to the centre of Didsbury. Very disconnected from Gorton, let alone Denton. (I don't know whether or not that part of it matches your suggestions.) *I'm pretty sure the reason the Trafford boundary ever went where it does, in that part of town, is because of the plans for an arterial "Altrincham bypass" motorway, which would have turned east around Stretford and then crashed through to reach Deansgate. I don't think the Manchester city boundary at that point has changed since the 19th century which is long before such a motorway would have been thought of. The old Stretford council had the huge financial advantage of the business rates generated by Trafford Park. Manchester Corporation had the chance to buy Trafford Park when it originally came up for sale, and they blew it. Good point about the ancestor boundaries. I think there's points at which the route of the Cornbrook is involved, too? Given that Clifford ward now has a retirement date, you wouldn't have any idea where the name comes from, would you? Because nobody I've spoken to, including local Labour people, has any idea. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 12, 2022 18:50:41 GMT
I don't think the Manchester city boundary at that point has changed since the 19th century which is long before such a motorway would have been thought of. The old Stretford council had the huge financial advantage of the business rates generated by Trafford Park. Manchester Corporation had the chance to buy Trafford Park when it originally came up for sale, and they blew it. Good point about the ancestor boundaries. I think there's points at which the route of the Cornbrook is involved, too? Given that Clifford ward now has a retirement date, you wouldn't have any idea where the name comes from, would you? Because nobody I've spoken to, including local Labour people, has any idea. The name goes back to when Stretford UDC was set up in the 1890s, but beyond that I don't know. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 17, 2022 20:26:09 GMT
Whitehaven and Workington's northern boundary doesn't look very good - it effectively divides the Workington urban area between constituencies. Could easily be fixed by swapping Keswick and Crummock & Derwent Valley for Seaton & Northside and Flimby. I have made a submission suggesting this change, and supporting the rest of the Cumbria and north Lancs map. |
|
|
|
Post by northerner on Nov 21, 2022 17:40:20 GMT
Whitehaven and Workington's northern boundary doesn't look very good - it effectively divides the Workington urban area between constituencies. Could easily be fixed by swapping Keswick and Crummock & Derwent Valley for Seaton & Northside and Flimby. There's potentially also room to swap areas to the west of Penrith with areas to the north-east, though I'm less sure whether that's an improvement or not. That would certainly help the Conservatives in that Whitehaven and Workington seat, without impacting that new Penrith seat. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 21, 2022 20:14:46 GMT
I suspect the opposite is true - local election results suggest that Flimby is a lot stronger for Labour than Crummock is for the Tories, and Seaton is probably a bit better than Keswick too.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,065
|
Post by nyx on Nov 21, 2022 22:09:35 GMT
Whitehaven and Workington's northern boundary doesn't look very good - it effectively divides the Workington urban area between constituencies. Could easily be fixed by swapping Keswick and Crummock & Derwent Valley for Seaton & Northside and Flimby. There's potentially also room to swap areas to the west of Penrith with areas to the north-east, though I'm less sure whether that's an improvement or not. Here's an idea... Seaton & Northside, Flimby, and Broughton St Bridgets to Whitehaven and Workington. Crummock and Derwent Valley, and Keswick, to Penrith and Solway. Then ... Greystoke, Dacre, and Ullswater from Westmorland and Lonsdale to Penrith and Solway; and Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale from Morecambe and Lunesdale to Westmorland and Lonsdale. So altogether nine wards moved compared to the revised proposals. Whitehaven and Workington 76543 electors, Penrith and Solway 77017, Westmorland and Lonsdale 73792, Morecambe and Lunesdale 71115. The only slightly awkward thing about this idea is Broughton St Bridgets sticking out, but overall I think it would be a major improvement over the revised proposals? Penrith and Solway would be much better connected if Penrith–Keswick–Cockermouth are all in the same constituency along the A66 so it's no longer just Wigton that Penrith is linked to by a significant road, and Westmorland and Lonsdale no longer has the weird spike north which really isn't connected especially well to the rest of the constituency. Wonder if this might be worth submitting to the Commission?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 15:20:02 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.
Some very close to the Revised Recommendations here! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2022 23:24:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Dec 5, 2022 6:27:29 GMT
It's not super pretty but the numbers do exist for three whole constituencies in the new Cumberland UA. Whitehaven & Workington regains Millom etc but loses the four rural Allerdale wards (so an even closer shave for Workington), Carlisle loses an extra ward (Wetheral & Corby or else Belah & Kingmore, whichever is worse) and the remaining area makes a seat, Allerdale or Solway Firth or Keswick & Maryport or whatever name you prefer. All at 70k and small change.
[/looking forward to the next review already]
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 5, 2022 7:40:30 GMT
It's not super pretty but the numbers do exist for three whole constituencies in the new Cumberland UA. Whitehaven & Workington regains Millom etc but loses the four rural Allerdale wards (so an even closer shave for Workington), Carlisle loses an extra ward (Wetheral & Corby or else Belah & Kingmore, whichever is worse) and the remaining area makes a seat, Allerdale or Solway Firth or Keswick & Maryport or whatever name you prefer. All at 70k and small change. [/looking forward to the next review already] Yeah, you can also do it with separate Whitehaven and Workington seats; I posted a plan upthread somewhere. Westmorland & Furness though does not seem to work well: Kendal ends up on the edge of a seat and there's a danger of Morecambe & Windermere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2022 8:42:04 GMT
If you have to cross the border, you can't go that far north. Windermere is undeniably a Cumbrian town and Morecambe undeniably Lancastrian.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 5, 2022 9:33:36 GMT
It's not super pretty but the numbers do exist for three whole constituencies in the new Cumberland UA. Whitehaven & Workington regains Millom etc but loses the four rural Allerdale wards (so an even closer shave for Workington), Carlisle loses an extra ward (Wetheral & Corby or else Belah & Kingmore, whichever is worse) and the remaining area makes a seat, Allerdale or Solway Firth or Keswick & Maryport or whatever name you prefer. All at 70k and small change. [/looking forward to the next review already] Yeah, you can also do it with separate Whitehaven and Workington seats; I posted a plan upthread somewhere. Westmorland & Furness though does not seem to work well: Kendal ends up on the edge of a seat and there's a danger of Morecambe & Windermere. Or just go back to the BCE's initial plan for a split-ward arrangement so the seat extends to the south-eastern Windermere area.
If you reflected this in the name it could be handily abbreviated to 'Morecambe and WiSE'.
(I'll get my coat.)
|
|
