Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2021 11:48:33 GMT
I'm struggling with east Lancashire.  |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633 
|
Post by ricmk on Jan 9, 2021 13:14:34 GMT
 Well, it's a first draft. Stockport (entitlement 3.02, allocation 3) CHEADLE (73775) - unchanged HAZEL GROVE (72941) - gains Manor from Stockport STOCKPORT (74769) - loses Manor to Hazel Grove, gains Reddish from Denton and Reddish Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Trafford (entitlement 13.96, allocation 14) This worked out surprisingly easily. OLDHAM EAST AND SADDLEWORTH (72997) - unchanged ROCHDALE (71697) - loses Spotland and Falinge ward to Heywood and Middleton. HEYWOOD AND ROYTON (72853) - successor to Heywood and Middleton. Gains Spotland from Rochdale and the Royton wards from Oldham West and Royton, loses the four Middleton wards. OLDHAM WEST (73746) - loses Royton to Heywood and Royton, gains Failsworth from Ashton-under-Lyne. BLACKLEY AND MIDDLETON (75653) - the four Middleton wards and the four northernmost wards of Manchester. MANCHESTER CENTRAL (72819) - Ancoats, Ardwick, Cheetham, Deansgate, Hulme, Moss Side, Piccadilly. MANCHESTER EAST (75220) - Clayton, Gorton, Miles Platting, Moston, and Audenshaw and Droylsden from Tameside. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE AND STALYBRIDGE (71134) - the four Ashton wards, the two Stalybridge wards, Dukinfield Stalybridge and Mossley. Reorienting the Tameside seats avoided having to split one of the main towns in the borough. DENTON AND HYDE (72657) - the three Denton wards, the three Hyde wards, Dukinfield and Longdendale. MANCHESTER RUSHOLME (70397) - successor to Gorton. Gains Burnage from Withington, loses Gorton and Abbey Hey to Manchester East. MANCHESTER WITHINGTON (71614) - loses Burnage to Manchester Gorton, realigns to new wards STRETFORD AND URMSTON (73212) - unchanged ALTRINCHAM AND SALE WEST (73934) - unchanged WYTHENSHAWE AND SALE EAST (76971) - unchanged [snip] I've had a look at Manchester myself this morning. Will save all the tricky stuff around Wigan for later (will then find out if it can connect to Cheshire) but I've started with the rest. Agree that Stockport, Stretford and Urmston, Altrincham and Sale West, Wythenshawe and Safe East are straightforward and alternatives hard to justify. I note that the andrewteale draft has 2 seats crossing the Rochdale boundary so I tried to prevent this, which means not combining Middleton with Blackley. Here's what I came up with:  On the plus side, I like how Rochdale, Tameside & Central Manchester are configured. The two weak links seem to be the two cross-authority constituencies: 2 - Failsworth and Blackley. I think these are well connected in practice, but looks ugly on the map. Numbers tight that it has to be those wards though. 9 - Gorton and Denton. One for the railway fans maybe. I know Andrew is local so I'd be interested in his views in particular as to how these match up - do the weaknesses here overpower what for me is an improvement in Rochdale? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 9, 2021 13:23:08 GMT
Denton was actually part of the Manchester Gorton constituency between 1955 and 1974, so there is precedent for that. They're not far apart at all.
Your Rochdale and Heywood/Middleton seats are fine on their own terms, but I think that if you're going to draw a Littleborough and Saddleworth constituency it really should have all of Littleborough in it. The seat was broken up in 1997 for a reason; its successors are much better internally connected.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 9, 2021 14:56:37 GMT
Another way of making the Lancashire/Cumbria combination easier is if you can remove Whitworth. Unfortunately the only way I can find to accommodate Whitworth in Rochdale without messing up the rest of GM is to move the Kingsway ward out, which isn't ideal.
If you can do that, the rest of Rossendale can be contained in Rossendale and Darwen, and Hyndburn can go right up to the maximum limit with tiny Ribble Valley wards. Mid Lancashire/Not Preston still isn't good though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2021 15:10:34 GMT
The numbers are just too tight. I've deleted everything to try again and it's just so, so hard. So hard.
I used to be good at this. It's so so hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 9, 2021 15:41:30 GMT
Well, it's a first draft. Stockport (entitlement 3.02, allocation 3) CHEADLE (73775) - unchanged HAZEL GROVE (72941) - gains Manor from Stockport STOCKPORT (74769) - loses Manor to Hazel Grove, gains Reddish from Denton and Reddish Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Trafford (entitlement 13.96, allocation 14) This worked out surprisingly easily. OLDHAM EAST AND SADDLEWORTH (72997) - unchanged ROCHDALE (71697) - loses Spotland and Falinge ward to Heywood and Middleton. HEYWOOD AND ROYTON (72853) - successor to Heywood and Middleton. Gains Spotland from Rochdale and the Royton wards from Oldham West and Royton, loses the four Middleton wards. OLDHAM WEST (73746) - loses Royton to Heywood and Royton, gains Failsworth from Ashton-under-Lyne. BLACKLEY AND MIDDLETON (75653) - the four Middleton wards and the four northernmost wards of Manchester. MANCHESTER CENTRAL (72819) - Ancoats, Ardwick, Cheetham, Deansgate, Hulme, Moss Side, Piccadilly. MANCHESTER EAST (75220) - Clayton, Gorton, Miles Platting, Moston, and Audenshaw and Droylsden from Tameside. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE AND STALYBRIDGE (71134) - the four Ashton wards, the two Stalybridge wards, Dukinfield Stalybridge and Mossley. Reorienting the Tameside seats avoided having to split one of the main towns in the borough. DENTON AND HYDE (72657) - the three Denton wards, the three Hyde wards, Dukinfield and Longdendale. MANCHESTER RUSHOLME (70397) - successor to Gorton. Gains Burnage from Withington, loses Gorton and Abbey Hey to Manchester East. MANCHESTER WITHINGTON (71614) - loses Burnage to Manchester Gorton, realigns to new wards STRETFORD AND URMSTON (73212) - unchanged ALTRINCHAM AND SALE WEST (73934) - unchanged WYTHENSHAWE AND SALE EAST (76971) - unchanged [snip] I've had a look at Manchester myself this morning. Will save all the tricky stuff around Wigan for later (will then find out if it can connect to Cheshire) but I've started with the rest. Agree that Stockport, Stretford and Urmston, Altrincham and Sale West, Wythenshawe and Safe East are straightforward and alternatives hard to justify. I note that the andrewteale draft has 2 seats crossing the Rochdale boundary so I tried to prevent this, which means not combining Middleton with Blackley. Here's what I came up with: On the plus side, I like how Rochdale, Tameside & Central Manchester are configured. The two weak links seem to be the two cross-authority constituencies: 2 - Failsworth and Blackley. I think these are well connected in practice, but looks ugly on the map. Numbers tight that it has to be those wards though. 9 - Gorton and Denton. One for the railway fans maybe. I know Andrew is local so I'd be interested in his views in particular as to how these match up - do the weaknesses here overpower what for me is an improvement in Rochdale? I agree with you about the Tameside seats, Manchester Rusholme and Manchester Piccadilly but I'd suggest the following modification for Oldham, Rochdale and north Manchester: Heywood & Middleton (72967): relative to current seat, loses Norden Rochdale (72134): gains Norden, loses Milnrow & Newhey and Balderstone & Kirkholt Oldham East & Saddleworth (72728): loses St Mary's and Alexandra, gains Milnrow & Newhey and Balderstone & Kirkholt Oldham West & Royton (73667): gains St Mary's and Alexandra, loses Hollinwood and Medlock Vale Blackley & Failsworth (76587): Crumpsall, Higher Blackley; Charlestown; Moston; the two Failsworth wards; Hollinwood and Medlock Vale Blackley & Failsworth is a bit ugly, but relative to your plan it keeps Littleborough and Chadderton together |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2021 15:45:30 GMT
 Fleetwood 73993 Yes 2 Chorley 74568 Yes 3 West Lancashire 73316 Yes 4 Skelmersdale and Standish 72760 Yes 5 Leyland 70561 Yes 6 Preston 72932 Yes 7 Ribble Valley 74062 Yes 8 Lancaster and Wyre 71904 Yes 9 Fylde 75114 Yes Blackpool South is 9,000 votes over quota so I'm all out of ideas at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 9, 2021 20:49:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 9, 2021 20:55:46 GMT
I like the separate Runcorn and Widnes seats
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2021 21:05:36 GMT
I don't know how people make it look so easy! I just stared at your Blackpools thinking about how long it took me to get nowhere over and over again. I used to be good at this. So so long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 9, 2021 21:17:23 GMT
OK here's my attempt at NW. I tried to fix both Cheshire and Wigan etc by taking adding one ward to Warrington N. There are a couple of compromises but overall I'm reasonably happy with all this. The only big downside is the butchering of Salford. (not sure whether it is better in the end to solve the Cheshire problem by transferring electors from Lancs as others have proposed). On the contrary, what you've done to Salford is perfectly reasonable. The only real downside is Claremont being in a Swinton-based seat but that's certainly arguable - it's a continuous urban area. Kersal and Prestwich have a lot in common; Boothstown and Astley have good communication links. A Warrington seat with Cadishead should also include Rixton and Woolston because that's where the road goes, but otherwise there's not much to nitpick. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2021 21:56:57 GMT
If the wiggle room in the NW is so tight - and in Cumbria/Lancashire this 3-page thread certainly suggests that - we could have done the BCE's work for it already.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 9, 2021 23:35:22 GMT
My plan for Lancashire & Cumbria: ibb.co/92CVS9Mibb.co/QdQTnJPibb.co/6yrKmvdibb.co/ZTNstsvThe abolished constituency is Workington (Penrith & Cockermouth is the successor to Penrith & The Border even though the former constituency makes up less than half of Penrith & Cockermouth). |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 9, 2021 23:56:29 GMT
OK here's my attempt at NW. I tried to fix both Cheshire and Wigan etc by taking adding one ward to Warrington N. There are a couple of compromises but overall I'm reasonably happy with all this. The only big downside is the butchering of Salford. (not sure whether it is better in the end to solve the Cheshire problem by transferring electors from Lancs as others have proposed). On the contrary, what you've done to Salford is perfectly reasonable. The only real downside is Claremont being in a Swinton-based seat but that's certainly arguable - it's a continuous urban area. Kersal and Prestwich have a lot in common; Boothstown and Astley have good communication links. A Warrington seat with Cadishead should also include Rixton and Woolston because that's where the road goes, but otherwise there's not much to nitpick. Actually that makes me realise it is better to put Cadishead etc into Warrington S (as you say) and then leave Fairfield & Howley and Poulton S in Warrington N instead. - thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 10, 2021 0:02:32 GMT
My plan for Lancashire & Cumbria: ibb.co/92CVS9Mibb.co/QdQTnJPibb.co/6yrKmvdibb.co/ZTNstsvThe abolished constituency is Workington (Penrith & Cockermouth is the successor to Penrith & The Border even though the former constituency makes up less than half of Penrith & Cockermouth). Your N.Lancs seat is 'interesting'. apart from anything else Grange is detached from the rest of the seat ... |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 10, 2021 9:37:55 GMT
My plan for Lancashire & Cumbria: ibb.co/92CVS9Mibb.co/QdQTnJPibb.co/6yrKmvdibb.co/ZTNstsvThe abolished constituency is Workington (Penrith & Cockermouth is the successor to Penrith & The Border even though the former constituency makes up less than half of Penrith & Cockermouth). Your N.Lancs seat is 'interesting'. apart from anything else Grange is detached from the rest of the seat ... Grange-over-Sands is definitely in the seat. It was created mainly to resolve the issue around Lancaster in the light that it was not possible to keep Lancaster & Fleetwood. Lancaster & Fleetwood is technically abolished as well, and North Lancashire is a "new seat". Lancaster & Morecambe would succeed Morecambe & Lunesdale. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
|
Post by ricmk on Jan 10, 2021 10:24:49 GMT
Your N.Lancs seat is 'interesting'. apart from anything else Grange is detached from the rest of the seat ... Grange-over-Sands is definitely in the seat. It was created mainly to resolve the issue around Lancaster in the light that it was not possible to keep Lancaster & Fleetwood. Lancaster & Fleetwood is technically abolished as well, and North Lancashire is a "new seat". Lancaster & Morecambe would succeed Morecambe & Lunesdale. I think the issue is that Grange is only connected to the rest of the seat across Morecambe Bay and not by land. It is walkable - I’ve done it - but not sure the Boundary Commission will see that as good transport links. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 10:46:21 GMT
Grange can be added as long as neighbouring wards are also added.
But "Morecambe and Lancaster" appears to mean a seat connecting Bowland with Morecambe Bay and that doesn't add up.
"Vale of Preston" isn't a thing, either. That phrase is not one I've ever seen or heard connected to the area.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 10, 2021 11:02:45 GMT
Grange-over-Sands is definitely in the seat. It was created mainly to resolve the issue around Lancaster in the light that it was not possible to keep Lancaster & Fleetwood. Lancaster & Fleetwood is technically abolished as well, and North Lancashire is a "new seat". Lancaster & Morecambe would succeed Morecambe & Lunesdale. I think the issue is that Grange is only connected to the rest of the seat across Morecambe Bay and not by land. It is walkable - I’ve done it - but not sure the Boundary Commission will see that as good transport links. That was the case with the old (pre-1983) Morecambe and Lonsdale seat, though - and that endured for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by newsouthender on Jan 10, 2021 12:59:21 GMT
If the wiggle room in the NW is so tight - and in Cumbria/Lancashire this 3-page thread certainly suggests that - we could have done the BCE's work for it already. Yes certainly for the North Lancs & Fylde area there seems to be a lot of similarity between the (very good) plans so far in this thread. In terms of the Fylde coast at least, I think this is due to what is possible within the numbers and what actually works on the ground aligning quite well. For example with the December 2019 numbers, the Blackpool South seat that is in several of the plans was over the limit by a couple of hundred voters but now fits. In turn this allows the whole of Fylde borough to be kept together with the three Poulton town wards and no crossings with Blackpool. It is difficult to argue that Fleetwood fits better with Cleveleys and North Blackpool compared to Lancaster. |
|
