|
|
Post by islington on Apr 17, 2016 13:47:39 GMT
That's going to be the difficult bit to sell. It also doesn't sort out the present weird split of Eccles (although to be fair my plan doesn't do that either). Just on the issue about the acceptability (or not) of the Stretford & Irlam seat - I've been doing some research, and guess what? From 1918 until at least 1945 there was a Stretford constituency that included not only Stretford and Urmston but also Irlam UD and (most of) Barton-on-Irwell RD. In other words, an area remarkably similar to my suggestion, and this at a time when the Manchester Ship Canal, running through the middle of the seat, was a huge trading artery of global importance rather than the relative backwater that it is today. Of course, I acknowledge that what was an acceptable seat in 1918 may not be acceptable today. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 19, 2016 9:42:37 GMT
I think I've got to the tinkering stage now ...
Playing with boundaries on the Wirral, I feel there's much to be said for Eastham, rather than Heswall, as the ward to be put in the Ellesmere Port seat. It's much nearer to Ellesmere Port town, whereas Heswall is much farther off and faces the Dee. It then makes sense to add Bromborough ward to Birkenhead, creating a strong Mersey-facing seat. This is in fact the arrangement shown on the home page of Boundary Assistant.
It opens up a further possibility, which I'm still mulling over, of bolstering Wallasey with Upton ward rather than Hoylake as most proposals have suggested. These changes would give:
BIRKENHEAD - 72003
WALLASEY - 76052
BEBINGTON AND HOYLAKE (or even just 'Wirral' - there used to be a seat of that name covering roughly this area) - 76062
ELLESMERE PORT AND NESTON - 73599
As always, thoughts welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 19, 2016 11:53:36 GMT
I think I've got to the tinkering stage now ... Playing with boundaries on the Wirral, I feel there's much to be said for Eastham, rather than Heswall, as the ward to be put in the Ellesmere Port seat. It's much nearer to Ellesmere Port town, whereas Heswall is much farther off and faces the Dee. It then makes sense to add Bromborough ward to Birkenhead, creating a strong Mersey-facing seat. This is in fact the arrangement shown on the home page of Boundary Assistant. It opens up a further possibility, which I'm still mulling over, of bolstering Wallasey with Upton ward rather than Hoylake as most proposals have suggested. These changes would give: BIRKENHEAD - 72003 WALLASEY - 76052 BEBINGTON AND HOYLAKE (or even just 'Wirral' - there used to be a seat of that name covering roughly this area) - 76062 ELLESMERE PORT AND NESTON - 73599 As always, thoughts welcome. With the caveat that I don't know the area at all, would it be worth considering an increase in the amount of change if it tidies things up? Just looking at a map, the wards of Eastham and Bromborough appear to naturally flow into one another and be well connected with each other and both Birkenhead and Ellesmere Port. On the other hand, the 3 'Neston' wards of Neston, Little Neston and Parkgate appear to link well together, but have more in common with Heswall and Thurstaston than Ellesmere Port. As such, how about putting both Eastham and Bromborough into Ellesmere Port. Bebington goes into Birkenhead. Upton into Wallasey, and you are left with a "Wirral Deeside" that includes Hoylake, Heswell and the 3 Neston Wards that you have liberated from their seeming ill-attachment to Ellesmere. Ellesmere - 74,860 Birkenhead - 72,672 Wallasey - 76,052 Wirral Deeside - 77,561 |
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149 
|
Post by Clarko on Apr 19, 2016 12:33:34 GMT
I think I've got to the tinkering stage now ... Playing with boundaries on the Wirral, I feel there's much to be said for Eastham, rather than Heswall, as the ward to be put in the Ellesmere Port seat. It's much nearer to Ellesmere Port town, whereas Heswall is much farther off and faces the Dee. It then makes sense to add Bromborough ward to Birkenhead, creating a strong Mersey-facing seat. This is in fact the arrangement shown on the home page of Boundary Assistant. It opens up a further possibility, which I'm still mulling over, of bolstering Wallasey with Upton ward rather than Hoylake as most proposals have suggested. These changes would give: BIRKENHEAD - 72003 WALLASEY - 76052 BEBINGTON AND HOYLAKE (or even just 'Wirral' - there used to be a seat of that name covering roughly this area) - 76062 ELLESMERE PORT AND NESTON - 73599 As always, thoughts welcome. With the caveat that I don't know the area at all, would it be worth considering an increase in the amount of change if it tidies things up? Just looking at a map, the wards of Eastham and Bromborough appear to naturally flow into one another and be well connected with each other and both Birkenhead and Ellesmere Port. On the other hand, the 3 'Neston' wards of Neston, Little Neston and Parkgate appear to link well together, but have more in common with Heswall and Thurstaston than Ellesmere Port. As such, how about putting both Eastham and Bromborough into Ellesmere Port. Bebington goes into Birkenhead. Upton into Wallasey, and you are left with a "Wirral Deeside" that includes Hoylake, Heswell and the 3 Neston Wards that you have liberated from their seeming ill-attachment to Ellesmere. Ellesmere - 74,860 Birkenhead - 72,672 Wallasey - 76,052 Wirral Deeside - 77,561 Personally, that's the arrangement that I think makes most sense, considering local ties. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 24, 2016 20:10:10 GMT
With the caveat that I don't know the area at all, would it be worth considering an increase in the amount of change if it tidies things up? Just looking at a map, the wards of Eastham and Bromborough appear to naturally flow into one another and be well connected with each other and both Birkenhead and Ellesmere Port. On the other hand, the 3 'Neston' wards of Neston, Little Neston and Parkgate appear to link well together, but have more in common with Heswall and Thurstaston than Ellesmere Port. As such, how about putting both Eastham and Bromborough into Ellesmere Port. Bebington goes into Birkenhead. Upton into Wallasey, and you are left with a "Wirral Deeside" that includes Hoylake, Heswell and the 3 Neston Wards that you have liberated from their seeming ill-attachment to Ellesmere. Ellesmere - 74,860 Birkenhead - 72,672 Wallasey - 76,052 Wirral Deeside - 77,561 Personally, that's the arrangement that I think makes most sense, considering local ties. And except for the weirdness around Ellesmere Port, it's what the revised zombie proposals had. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 25, 2016 11:14:03 GMT
I'm not so sure. It's not just about designing the most logical seats; it's also about having regard to existing boundaries. On the Wirral itself, there's a limit to how far you can do this because a seat has to disappear entirely; but in Cheshire, you can substantially preserve the Ellesmere Port seat (it simply adds a ward, either Heswall or Eastham according to taste) and I'm guessing that that's what they'll do.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 25, 2016 13:42:33 GMT
A bit strange to promote keeping Ellesmere Port as unchanged as possible over keeping the other seats as unchanged as possible.
It would be, but that's not what I'm suggesting. Birkenhead and Wallasey, like Ellesmere Port, are subject to 'least change': i.e. each of them has just a single ward added, which is the least change they can reasonably expect considering they are all well below quota. Admittedly, the same is not true of Wirral S and Wirral W, but this is (a) because they are both miles below quota, and (b) because the area as a whole has to lose a seat. But the fact two of the seats are unavoidably subject to major change doesn't set aside the 'least change' criterion for the other three. As a general observation, not confined to the Wirral, I think there's an arguable case that many of the contributors to these discussions have not always had sufficient regard to the importance of existing boundaries. I'm not excluding myself from this remark. |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 25, 2016 14:55:39 GMT
As a general observation, not confined to the Wirral, I think there's an arguable case that many of the contributors to these discussions have not always had sufficient regard to the importance of existing boundaries. I'm not excluding myself from this remark. I think that that's a very fair point - although from my perspective at least that's partly because I see it as a somewhat 'redundant' condition. Given the reduction in seats, the nature of Individual Voter Registration and the 5% quota - there is an argument to be made that this Review should be a 'start afresh' version without regard to existing seats (given that there will inevitably be a large amount of change anyway). Clearly some seats will end up looking similar, but mostly where they made logical sense to start with and you are then re-creating them again. By 'keeping existing boundaries where possible' there is more likelihood of 'bad' / 'illogical' seats persisting - which is why I have started with a 'fresh slate' approach this time. I fully accept that the boundary commission might not see it that way. Oh well - here's to Mersey Banks forever in that case...  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 25, 2016 15:29:07 GMT
Anything other than having Heswall being the one MBW ward that goes into an out of borough seat is just horrible, really awful. Not least because that would mean my home village being split between at least two seats, and possibly three if you just took out Eastham.
I'm afraid no one else on here seems to appreciate how communities on the Wirral work and it seems nuts to hive off the bottom bit of the eastern Wirral urban sprawl but keep Heswall separate from Neston and Parkgate. As has been said, the Met Borough needs to lose a seat so all seats are expendable. The opportunity therefore comes to make them as coherent as possible.
Mersey Banks wasn't just an abomination for what it did east of Ellesmere Port...
I've done a Cheshire/GM plan I'll post up later.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 25, 2016 16:57:18 GMT
This appears to be one of those places where ward-splitting, whilst not required, would make for much more natural seats. Looking purely at the map, it appears that if you split Bromborough ward in 2 (I imagine along Dibbindale Brook) then Port Sunlight naturally goes with Rock Ferry in Birkenhead, and Bromborough and Eastham are part of the same contiguous urban unit. Similarly with Clatterbridge - Everything West of the M53 goes with Heswell / Barnston / Neston. East of the M53 and North of the Brook (ie Moss Hey) goes with Bebbington ward. Remainder goes with Bromborough. Clearly I don't know the area, so I might well be talk rubbish - but certainly on a map that appears to be where the boundaries naturally fall...
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 25, 2016 17:37:02 GMT
Heswell would go in with Neston and Parkgate into Wirral Deeside. Eastham and Bromborough stay together into Ellesmere Port. In the circumstances, I'd say that's the least bad option and the BCE agreed last time after the consultation. The Mersey Banks abomination can be avoided and a Weaver Vale seat can be retained in a slightly more logical form thanks to the new ward boundaries in Cheshire. No it isn't, you're still splitting Bromborough and Eastham between two constituencies. My point is that there's only the need for one ward of MBW to go into a seat outside and that should be what happens rather than swapping some out and taking some in. The boundaries on the east side of the Met Borough are completely arbitrary, splitting off New Ferry and Port Sunlight from Bebington is bad enough in council wards, for them to be in a different constituency, especially one that goes all the way to Ellesmere Port, is frankly bizarre. As I say, Mersey Banks wasn't just appalling for what happened on the other side of Ellesmere Port. The M53 is also a significant southern boundary on that side of the peninsular. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 25, 2016 17:39:55 GMT
I'd be surprised if the BCE didn't propose something very similar again this time. Personally, I preferred the name Hoylake & Neston but there was pretty strong local feeling in favour of Wirral Deeside instead. [...] In my view, the neatest place to do it is cross the border at Stockport With respect, in this instance the 'local feeling' is most certainly wrong. Agreed about Stockport, although I just see that as an internal border within Cheshire rather than a county boundary. I really wish this would happen too, lennon, but everyone who ventures onto this sub-forum knows full well that that is not how the Commission operates. There are enough restrictions in the legislation without them creating extra ones for themselves – and that includes refusing to cross the boundaries of England's artificial regions. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 25, 2016 17:40:55 GMT
The M53 is also a significant southern boundary on that side of the peninsular. The peninsular what? |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 25, 2016 17:44:09 GMT
The M53 is also a significant southern boundary on that side of the peninsular. The peninsular what? Eh? What are you on about? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 25, 2016 17:45:13 GMT
You seriously don't know that 'peninsular' is an adjective, and that the noun you're looking for is 'peninsula'??
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 25, 2016 18:29:49 GMT
You seriously don't know that 'peninsular' is an adjective, and that the noun you're looking for is 'peninsula'?? It's not a word or words I've had much reason to write (despite coming from a peninsul a). To be honest, it never even occurred to me, probably down to watching too much Sharpe.  Wirral, anyway, to make my sentence earlier make grammatical sense. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 25, 2016 23:29:04 GMT
No it isn't, you're still splitting Bromborough and Eastham between two constituencies. My point is that there's only the need for one ward of MBW to go into a seat outside and that should be what happens rather than swapping some out and taking some in. The boundaries on the east side of the Met Borough are completely arbitrary, splitting off New Ferry and Port Sunlight from Bebington is bad enough in council wards, for them to be in a different constituency, especially one that goes all the way to Ellesmere Port, is frankly bizarre. As I say, Mersey Banks wasn't just appalling for what happened on the other side of Ellesmere Port. The M53 is also a significant southern boundary on that side of the peninsular. No, Ellesmere Port would contain the following: Ellesmere Port Town Grange Ledsham & Manor Netherpool Rossmore St Pauls Strawberry Sutton Whitby Willaston & Thornby Eastham Bromborough I know, that doesn't change the fact that Eastham and Bromborough are being split between constituencies in your plan. That's because part of Bromborough and Eastham are in Clatterbridge ward. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 26, 2016 10:42:03 GMT
As a general observation, not confined to the Wirral, I think there's an arguable case that many of the contributors to these discussions have not always had sufficient regard to the importance of existing boundaries. I'm not excluding myself from this remark. I think that that's a very fair point - although from my perspective at least that's partly because I see it as a somewhat 'redundant' condition. Given the reduction in seats, the nature of Individual Voter Registration and the 5% quota - there is an argument to be made that this Review should be a 'start afresh' version without regard to existing seats (given that there will inevitably be a large amount of change anyway). There is such an argument to be made but the backbenches shouted it down. The original first draft legislation (that also didn't have the Wight exception) nixed the Minimum Change provision for one review only. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 26, 2016 18:32:47 GMT
I think that there are worse splits to be found elsewhere. Such splits are impossible to avoid everywhere. The BCE at the last review explicitly made it clear that there is no requirement to ensure a town is contained wholly in a single constituency. The question is which splits allow for fewer problems elsewhere in the map and for the proposals as a whole to be more cohesive. I think that this is one of those examples. By accepting this small split (along ward lines anyway), it is possible to prevent much worse disruption across Cheshire and into Greater Manchester. No proposal is perfect and compromises have to be made somewhere. Like the BCE in 2013, I think this is the most sensible one. I can appreciate that this may minimise change in Cheshire (though given the schizophrenic nature of Weaver Vale, I'd question why that should be a priority.) But there's not nearly enough disparity in Wirral ward sizes for the knock-on consequences to affect Greater Manchester. So essentially you're suggesting dividing a natural community (the urban area of Bromborough and Eastham) in order to retain a constituency that's an ugly mash-up of three distinct communities (Runcorn, Northwich and the countryside in between.) |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 26, 2016 22:36:28 GMT
I think that there are worse splits to be found elsewhere. Such splits are impossible to avoid everywhere. The BCE at the last review explicitly made it clear that there is no requirement to ensure a town is contained wholly in a single constituency. The question is which splits allow for fewer problems elsewhere in the map and for the proposals as a whole to be more cohesive. I think that this is one of those examples. By accepting this small split (along ward lines anyway), it is possible to prevent much worse disruption across Cheshire and into Greater Manchester. No proposal is perfect and compromises have to be made somewhere. Like the BCE in 2013, I think this is the most sensible one.
Generally speaking, you should avoid the splitting of towns wherever possible in boundary reviews, unless the town or city is large enough all on its own to merit having more than one parliamentary constituency (e.g. Northampton, Oxford).
|
|
