|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 27, 2021 13:53:53 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this observation, but I note that if you treat the unitary authorities of Halton and Warrington with Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside, then the rest of Cheshire (i.e. the two big unitaries) together with the Wirral has fairly sensible numbers for 11 constituencies. You can even respect the border between the two big unitaries, though when you've seen the map below which does you might decide you don't want to... Even after detaching Sefton, that leaves an unwieldy "sub"region stretching from the Mersey to the Scottish border and including nine top level authorities, with an allocation of 32 seats. To make it a little more manageable, I suggest thinking of it in two parts, one consisting of Cumbria, Blackpool, Lancaster, Fylde and Wyre (10 seats) and one containing everything else (22 seats). Here's Cheshire:  Wirral and CWaC1. West Wirral (76,312). The Wirral seats are in the configuration due to ricmk . 2. Birkenhead West & Bebington (69,819). Or whatever you want to call it. 3. Birkenhead Riverside & Wallasey (75,320). 4. Ellesmere Port & Bromborough (71,027). 5. Chester (74,920). No room for Great Boughton. 6. Northwich (72,926). Basically the towns of Northwich and Winsford and their immediate hinterlands. 7. Eddisbury (75,490). Basically rural west Cheshire, the Frodsham/Helsby area, and one Chester ward. You can go for something closer to the current Northwich/Eddisbury border, but I thought it left Gowy Rural ward a bit isolated. Cheshire East8. Macclesfield (75,881). Unchanged. 9. Tatton (75,900). Treating Cheshire East on its own creates some strange shapes. 10. Congleton (76,213). Looks weird, but it's basically the towns in the current seat, except Middlewich, plus some areas lost by Crewe & Nantwich in its westward shuffle. 11. Crewe & Nantwich (73,683). Shuffles westwards to fit the shape of the south-western border of the UA. To be a Congleton voter would be an interesting change for me. And placing Crewe Hall and (the original) Crewe i.e. Crewe Green outwith the Crewe & Nantwich constituency likewise, though not unprecedented. Taking Shavington out of Crewe & Nantwich might be a step too far! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 27, 2021 14:38:40 GMT
Now south and east Lancashire, Halton, Warrington and Lancastrian Merseyside (two maps):   East Lancs1. Rossendale & Darwen (74,593). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 2. Blackburn (70,586). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 3. Accrington (71,145). Boundaries unchanged. 4. Burnley (70,152). No need to split Nelson. 5. Pendle & Bowland (71,985). The exact arrangement is up for debate, but I don't think the numbers make sense for it to take Clitheroe town. Preston area6. Ribble Valley (74,206). I think enough is retained from the current seat to keep the name. Takes in areas from the abolished Wyre & Preston North. 7. Preston (72,946). Which wards are detached is up for debate. 8. South Ribble (71,402). Shifts a bit east, losing most West Lancs wards. 9. Chorley (72,390). Loses Euxton area. 10. Ormskirk (71,347). West Lancs loses Skelmersdale and gains Euxton and rural areas from South Ribble. Knowsley, St Helens, Halton and Warrington, plus a few Liverpool wards and Skelmersdale11. St Helens North & Skelmersdale (70,416). Crossing the Lancashire/Merseyside border. 12. Kirkby & Fazakerley (75,311). Name to be pronounced in a Scouse accent, of course. 13. Huyton (70,126). Entirely within Knowsley. 14. St Helens South & Prescot (69,898). 15. Widnes & Great Sankey (72,406). It's possible to maintain the current Halton seat and only cross the Warrington/Halton boundary once, but I decided to show the version which uses the Mersey as a boundary here. 16. St Helens East & Birchwood. I think St Helens drew a bit of a short straw in this map. 17. Runcorn & Lymm (75,722). Pitchforks? 18. Warrington Central (76,744). Most of Liverpool19. Liverpool Garston (70,742). Sheds Knowsley wards, gains Childwall. 20. Liverpool Wavertree (72,094). Loses Childwall, gains a short Mersey shoreline. 21. Liverpool West Derby (75,830). Loses Croxteth, gains Clubmoor and Anfield. 22. Liverpool Riverside (71,038). Loses south end and gains Everton, but still Riverside enough for the name, I think. Not enormously keen on those Warrington and Halton seats. I'm going to re-suggest my solution of Widnes & Whiston here:  Alternatively you can leave Halton unchanged and rotate the remaining seats accordingly for a reasonable minimum change option. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 17:14:13 GMT
YL that Preston looks fine to me.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 27, 2021 17:18:05 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this observation, but I note that if you treat the unitary authorities of Halton and Warrington with Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside, then the rest of Cheshire (i.e. the two big unitaries) together with the Wirral has fairly sensible numbers for 11 constituencies. You can even respect the border between the two big unitaries, though when you've seen the map below which does you might decide you don't want to...I don't want to but it works well by not doing so as well. Move Marbury and Shakerley from Northwich to Knutsford. Weaver & Cuddington and Tarporley to Northwich Audlem, Bunbury, Wrenbury and Wybunbury from Crewe to Eddisbury. Shavington and Haslington from Congleton to CRewe & Nantwich Brereton Rural and Middlewich to Congleton Call it minimum change Yes, I think that is on balance a better option, but I wanted to post the version which treated Cheshire East on its own, mainly to show that it could be done. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 27, 2021 17:23:51 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this observation, but I note that if you treat the unitary authorities of Halton and Warrington with Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside, then the rest of Cheshire (i.e. the two big unitaries) together with the Wirral has fairly sensible numbers for 11 constituencies. You can even respect the border between the two big unitaries, though when you've seen the map below which does you might decide you don't want to... Yes. I thought I'd try seeing if a solution that respects local government boundaries more in Cheshire existed. It's not pretty:  Wallasey and Birkenhead 75320 Yes Wirral West 76312 Yes Wirral South 69819 Yes Ellesmere Port 71027 Yes City of Chester 72327 Yes Eddisbury 75289 Yes Northwich 75770 Yes Crewe and Nantwich 75731 Yes Sandbach 76869 Yes Macclesfield and Congleton 77005 Yes Wilmslow 72072 Yes Runcorn and Warrington South 75722 Yes Widnes and Warrington West 72406 Yes Warrington Central 76744 Yes COMBINE NORTHWARD 29681 -40043 (might make Wigan and Lancashire/Cumbria easier?) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 27, 2021 18:09:58 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this observation, but I note that if you treat the unitary authorities of Halton and Warrington with Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside, then the rest of Cheshire (i.e. the two big unitaries) together with the Wirral has fairly sensible numbers for 11 constituencies. You can even respect the border between the two big unitaries, though when you've seen the map below which does you might decide you don't want to... Yes. (...) Ah, I thought I might have missed something. For a minute I thought you'd actually found a significantly better Cheshire East solution than the one I found, and was wondering how I'd missed it, and then I spotted Crewe East. Anyway, I think the 11 seat Cheshire idea is actually useful, except that it is probably better to ignore the border between the two big unitaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 27, 2021 19:52:20 GMT
My original draft for Lancashire actually involved this splitting Skelmersdale off so this answers the question posed at the end. I don't think I'd do mid Lancashire exactly like that but more or less (would rather keep Penwortham in South Ribble and have Ribble Valley take up that slack, as it does now) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 27, 2021 20:17:39 GMT
It's not necessary to split wards on the Wirral, but one clean ward split does allow much nicer seats, including leaving Wallasey and Birkenhead whole (no such joy for Bebington, obviously.) Here's what I've got:  Wallasey 74817 (approx; takes Greasby from Greasby, Frankby and Irby) Wirral West 69835 (approx, takes Frankby and Irby from Greasby, Frankby and Irby) Birkenhead 76799 Ellesmere Port & Bromborough 71027 Obviously that Wirral West is fairly tight for an approximation, but I'm reasonably confident it is OK. The entire ward has an electorate of 11668, as compared to 11660 in December 2019, so the electorate is pretty static. The two polling districts covering Irby had an electorate of 3407 in December 2019. Frankby is too small to have a polling district (it shares one with southern Greasby), but Wikipedia says it had a population just over 300 in 2001. You only need 139 electors to still be resident there to get Wirral West in quota, which is tight but secure enough. Alternatively, it might be possible to do it by splitting Hoylake and Meols ward, with Wirral West taking the ND ward (which is actually West Kirby) and that part of the NC polling district which covers the road between West Kirby and Hoylake rather than Hoylake proper. However, that would be extremely tight and eyeballing it I'm not sure it'd work without reaching far enough into Hoylake that you might as well grab the entirety of the village. Which would separate it from Meols, which feels suboptimal. Finally, one that I know Khunanup would absolutely hate: give Bebington ward to Birkenhead then split Upton ward N-S between Wallasey and Wirral West. The numbers for that are absolutely fine, but the numbers pitchforks it'd cause in Bebington are more concerning. It's probably also unlikely to be part of a Labour counterproposal, because I have trouble seeing them want to screw over Alison McGovern at the expense of Margaret Greenwood |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 27, 2021 20:34:41 GMT
Ah, I thought I might have missed something. For a minute I thought you'd actually found a significantly better Cheshire East solution than the one I found, and was wondering how I'd missed it, and then I spotted Crewe East. Anyway, I think the 11 seat Cheshire idea is actually useful, except that it is probably better to ignore the border between the two big unitaries. Yes, it's one of those ones that looks tidy on a macro scale and then the awfulness jumps out. And I haven't played around with Cheshire much, but I suspect that the effect of rotating things so that Crewe isn't awful is to spoil Northwich instead (although that is currently a mess; so one could call that minimum change). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 27, 2021 20:45:56 GMT
I think I may have found a reasonable solution for Cheshire East:  It won't win prizes for beauty and I'd still probably prefer ignoring the district boundary, but it's not actively repulsive. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 27, 2021 22:16:43 GMT
Now south and east Lancashire, Halton, Warrington and Lancastrian Merseyside (two maps): East Lancs1. Rossendale & Darwen (74,593). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 2. Blackburn (70,586). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 3. Accrington (71,145). Boundaries unchanged. 4. Burnley (70,152). No need to split Nelson. 5. Pendle & Bowland (71,985). The exact arrangement is up for debate, but I don't think the numbers make sense for it to take Clitheroe town. Preston area6. Ribble Valley (74,206). I think enough is retained from the current seat to keep the name. Takes in areas from the abolished Wyre & Preston North. 7. Preston (72,946). Which wards are detached is up for debate. 8. South Ribble (71,402). Shifts a bit east, losing most West Lancs wards. 9. Chorley (72,390). Loses Euxton area. 10. Ormskirk (71,347). West Lancs loses Skelmersdale and gains Euxton and rural areas from South Ribble. Knowsley, St Helens, Halton and Warrington, plus a few Liverpool wards and Skelmersdale11. St Helens North & Skelmersdale (70,416). Crossing the Lancashire/Merseyside border. 12. Kirkby & Fazakerley (75,311). Name to be pronounced in a Scouse accent, of course. 13. Huyton (70,126). Entirely within Knowsley. 14. St Helens South & Prescot (69,898). 15. Widnes & Great Sankey (72,406). It's possible to maintain the current Halton seat and only cross the Warrington/Halton boundary once, but I decided to show the version which uses the Mersey as a boundary here. 16. St Helens East & Birchwood. I think St Helens drew a bit of a short straw in this map. 17. Runcorn & Lymm (75,722). Pitchforks? 18. Warrington Central (76,744). Most of Liverpool19. Liverpool Garston (70,742). Sheds Knowsley wards, gains Childwall. 20. Liverpool Wavertree (72,094). Loses Childwall, gains a short Mersey shoreline. 21. Liverpool West Derby (75,830). Loses Croxteth, gains Clubmoor and Anfield. 22. Liverpool Riverside (71,038). Loses south end and gains Everton, but still Riverside enough for the name, I think. Not enormously keen on those Warrington and Halton seats. I'm going to re-suggest my solution of Widnes & Whiston here: Alternatively you can leave Halton unchanged and rotate the remaining seats accordingly for a reasonable minimum change option. You can avoid splitting Prescot by moving Halewood into the Widnes seat and moving Prescot East and Rainhill into the Knowsley seat, but that would leave you with an orphan St Helens ward in Knowsley. It would probably work better on the ground though. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 28, 2021 7:41:51 GMT
I think I may have found a reasonable solution for Cheshire East: It won't win prizes for beauty and I'd still probably prefer ignoring the district boundary, but it's not actively repulsive. and the eastern part also works with the north-south split if you prefer that. Petition to name the western seats as Crewe Central and Crewe Outer. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 28, 2021 10:04:21 GMT
Now south and east Lancashire, Halton, Warrington and Lancastrian Merseyside (two maps): East Lancs1. Rossendale & Darwen (74,593). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 2. Blackburn (70,586). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 3. Accrington (71,145). Boundaries unchanged. 4. Burnley (70,152). No need to split Nelson. 5. Pendle & Bowland (71,985). The exact arrangement is up for debate, but I don't think the numbers make sense for it to take Clitheroe town. Preston area6. Ribble Valley (74,206). I think enough is retained from the current seat to keep the name. Takes in areas from the abolished Wyre & Preston North. 7. Preston (72,946). Which wards are detached is up for debate. 8. South Ribble (71,402). Shifts a bit east, losing most West Lancs wards. 9. Chorley (72,390). Loses Euxton area. 10. Ormskirk (71,347). West Lancs loses Skelmersdale and gains Euxton and rural areas from South Ribble. I like a lot of this, but I think the carve up of Walton-le-Dale and Bamber Bridge is a mess. Here's a slight tweak:  Ormskirk (72001) - all of West Lancs bar Skelmersdale. Also takes the two Euxton wards from Chorley and one ward from South Ribble district. Euxton sticks out a bit, so if you prefer you could swap it for Coppull and Eccleston etc. but that isn't pretty either. Chorley (74561) - I see what you were doing adding Buckshaw and Worden, but that splits Leyland. I did have a play the other way by putting Buckshaw & Whittle and the Clayton wards in with Leyland, but I couldn't find a way to do that that didn't split Penwortham. South Ribble (75139) - no entirely located within the eponymous district. Ribble Valley (70654) - less of South Ribble but an extra ward from Fulwood. Burnley (70152) - as you have it. Pendle & Bowland (70797) - doesn't take Chipping ward. Preston (71124) - yes, Rural North looks very odd there, but it was the easiest way to make the numbers work. Alternatively, if you're happy to cross another LA boundary, you could change the Preston wards going into RV and add Newton & Treales ward from Fylde to Preston. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 10:17:25 GMT
Rural North isn't the best fit. Just thinking about the roads and connectivity, I'd say it needs to stick with Rural East. Newton/Treales is better (well, you know "better".
Buckshaw is such an oddity because neither Chorley nor South Ribble councils want to sacrifice council tax receipts. The boundary between both authorities slices through the village and probably always will.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 28, 2021 10:41:00 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this observation, but I note that if you treat the unitary authorities of Halton and Warrington with Lancashire and Lancastrian Merseyside, then the rest of Cheshire (i.e. the two big unitaries) together with the Wirral has fairly sensible numbers for 11 constituencies. You can even respect the border between the two big unitaries, though when you've seen the map below which does you might decide you don't want to... Even after detaching Sefton, that leaves an unwieldy "sub"region stretching from the Mersey to the Scottish border and including nine top level authorities, with an allocation of 32 seats. To make it a little more manageable, I suggest thinking of it in two parts, one consisting of Cumbria, Blackpool, Lancaster, Fylde and Wyre (10 seats) and one containing everything else (22 seats). I'm not necessarily going along with the exact seats YL is proposing, but I'm really impressed with the basic idea of this 32-seat sub-region. It's huge but, as he says, it can be made more manageable but splitting off 10 seats at the northern end, for which we have decent plans; and you can also hive off Blackburn UA and Hyndburn and Rossendale districts, which can retain their existing seats unchanged. So that leaves a slightly more manageable 19-seat sub-sub-region comprising everything else: Lancastrian Merseyside except Sefton, Halton and Warrington UAs, and the remaining seven districts from Lancashire.
I'll try to post some plans later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:14:39 GMT
We've discussed before how Boundary Commissioners are not us, and we're not boundary commissioners, so if they haven't spotted this 'hack' we could have one up on them when the time comes!
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 28, 2021 15:13:27 GMT
Now south and east Lancashire, Halton, Warrington and Lancastrian Merseyside (two maps): East Lancs1. Rossendale & Darwen (74,593). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 2. Blackburn (70,586). Re-aligned to new ward boundaries. 3. Accrington (71,145). Boundaries unchanged. 4. Burnley (70,152). No need to split Nelson. 5. Pendle & Bowland (71,985). The exact arrangement is up for debate, but I don't think the numbers make sense for it to take Clitheroe town. Preston area6. Ribble Valley (74,206). I think enough is retained from the current seat to keep the name. Takes in areas from the abolished Wyre & Preston North. 7. Preston (72,946). Which wards are detached is up for debate. 8. South Ribble (71,402). Shifts a bit east, losing most West Lancs wards. 9. Chorley (72,390). Loses Euxton area. 10. Ormskirk (71,347). West Lancs loses Skelmersdale and gains Euxton and rural areas from South Ribble. Knowsley, St Helens, Halton and Warrington, plus a few Liverpool wards and Skelmersdale11. St Helens North & Skelmersdale (70,416). Crossing the Lancashire/Merseyside border. 12. Kirkby & Fazakerley (75,311). Name to be pronounced in a Scouse accent, of course. 13. Huyton (70,126). Entirely within Knowsley. 14. St Helens South & Prescot (69,898). 15. Widnes & Great Sankey (72,406). It's possible to maintain the current Halton seat and only cross the Warrington/Halton boundary once, but I decided to show the version which uses the Mersey as a boundary here. 16. St Helens East & Birchwood. I think St Helens drew a bit of a short straw in this map. 17. Runcorn & Lymm (75,722). Pitchforks? 18. Warrington Central (76,744). Most of Liverpool19. Liverpool Garston (70,742). Sheds Knowsley wards, gains Childwall. 20. Liverpool Wavertree (72,094). Loses Childwall, gains a short Mersey shoreline. 21. Liverpool West Derby (75,830). Loses Croxteth, gains Clubmoor and Anfield. 22. Liverpool Riverside (71,038). Loses south end and gains Everton, but still Riverside enough for the name, I think. Not enormously keen on those Warrington and Halton seats. I'm going to re-suggest my solution of Widnes & Whiston here: Alternatively you can leave Halton unchanged and rotate the remaining seats accordingly for a reasonable minimum change option. I'd suggest that EAL's is the best approach, except that it splits Prescot and Widnes extends into three authorities. Both issues can be resolved if Widnes gains the Halewood wards in exchange for Prescot S and Rainhill. It does leave Rainhill out on a slight limb in the Huyton & Prescot seat, but it has good links with Prescot so it's better than it looks on the map.
Widnes - 72259 Huyton & Prescot - 70579
Other than that, may I float a completely mad idea? It actually works on the numbers if the St Helens N seat (whatever you want to call it) takes Ormskirk rather than Skelmersdale as its W Lancs element. The only reason I'm suggesting this is that the resulting Skelmersdale seat is quorate (by 79) without having to take a ward from S Ribble. And this in turn, apart from eliminating a boundary-crossing and an orphan ward, allows the Leyland seat (as I'd like to call it) to include Walton-le-Dale but not Bamber Bridge, which seems to be a better boundary in this tricky area. Numbers would be:
St Helens N & Ormskirk - 70197 Skelmersdale - 69803 Leyland - 71937
It's only a thought so please feel free to shoot it down in flames. I'm the first to admit I don't know this area at all well.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 28, 2021 17:01:40 GMT
Revised suggestion:
Ormskirk: as EAL has it (i.e. West Lancs less Skelmersdale, Hoole from South Ribble, and the two Euxton wards from Chorley). 72,001
Chorley: again as EAL (i.e. the district less the two Euxton wards). 74,561
Leyland: South Ribble district, except for Hoole, Samlesbury & Walton and the two Walton-le-Dale wards (but including both Bamber Bridge wards and Coupe Green & Gregson Lane). 71,782
Ribble Valley: As I had it before, except with Walton-le-Dale instead of Bamber Bridge and Coupe Green & Gregson Lane. 71,001 without Chipping ward or 72,189 with it.
Preston can then be as I had it before.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 28, 2021 18:30:46 GMT
It's not necessary to split wards on the Wirral, but one clean ward split does allow much nicer seats, including leaving Wallasey and Birkenhead whole (no such joy for Bebington, obviously.) Here's what I've got: Wallasey 74817 (approx; takes Greasby from Greasby, Frankby and Irby) Wirral West 69835 (approx, takes Frankby and Irby from Greasby, Frankby and Irby) Birkenhead 76799 Ellesmere Port & Bromborough 71027 Obviously that Wirral West is fairly tight for an approximation, but I'm reasonably confident it is OK. The entire ward has an electorate of 11668, as compared to 11660 in December 2019, so the electorate is pretty static. The two polling districts covering Irby had an electorate of 3407 in December 2019. Frankby is too small to have a polling district (it shares one with southern Greasby), but Wikipedia says it had a population just over 300 in 2001. You only need 139 electors to still be resident there to get Wirral West in quota, which is tight but secure enough. Alternatively, it might be possible to do it by splitting Hoylake and Meols ward, with Wirral West taking the ND ward (which is actually West Kirby) and that part of the NC polling district which covers the road between West Kirby and Hoylake rather than Hoylake proper. However, that would be extremely tight and eyeballing it I'm not sure it'd work without reaching far enough into Hoylake that you might as well grab the entirety of the village. Which would separate it from Meols, which feels suboptimal. Finally, one that I know Khunanup would absolutely hate: give Bebington ward to Birkenhead then split Upton ward N-S between Wallasey and Wirral West. The numbers for that are absolutely fine, but the numbers pitchforks it'd cause in Bebington are more concerning. It's probably also unlikely to be part of a Labour counterproposal, because I have trouble seeing them want to screw over Alison McGovern at the expense of Margaret Greenwood Yeah, that last one is abominable, Bebington being split between three constituencies is problematic at best... Bromborough, Bebington & a tiny part of Eastham do get split by the generally accepted non-split-ward plan on here but there's nothing you can really do about that (the curse of the settlements straddling the railway line that provides the ward boundaries in South East MBW). It'd be an interesting battle for nominations for the various seats. McGovern is from the Bromborough bit of Clatterbridge ward (same as me) but she's probably got less of a claim to any seat than anyone else as South is effectively the abolished seat. I'd fancy her chances though and I think it might be the new Birkenhead MP who gets squeezed out. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 28, 2021 19:34:43 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.
|
|
