|
|
Post by islington on Apr 29, 2016 10:53:22 GMT
Wow –
There’s been some great stuff posted here of late.
Just to respond to Adrian’s comments about my plan –
- I prefer names that will prompt the reasonably well-informed citizen to think, e.g. ‘Knutsford? Oh yes, I’ve heard of that. It’s in Cheshire.’ As opposed to ‘Tatton? Did I hear that correctly? Where the blazes is that?’ Likewise a name like ‘Bucklow’ has meaning only to people with an interest in historical administrative geography. I happen to be such a person, but what about the 99.9% that aren’t? But having said all that, I am trying (not always with success) not to get too much exercised about names, and to keep my focus on the actual boundaries.
- On the infra-Cheshire border: I understand Adrian’s reservations but surely, for the present purpose, we take LA boundaries as we find them. If the LA boundary is a bad one, there’s a separate process for addressing that.
- Thanks for the kind comment about the Blackley and Altrincham seats. I agree that the latter’s boundary is very snug around Altrincham town, but what can you do? And although my teachers told me at school that self-praise is no recommendation, I’ll add that I was also very happy with Manchester Central, which, by including Cheetham and excluding remoter wards like Moston, seems to me to capture the heart of Manchester rather better than most other proposals or the existing seat.
- I’m rather warming to the Stretford and Irlam seat now that I’ve discovered there was a constituency with remarkably similar boundaries from 1918 until at least 1945. I agree 100% about the Eccles split but at least I didn’t invent it; it exists in the current map.
Let me also reply to Minion –
- Minion has put forward a really bold and imaginative plan and the Widnes-Runcorn split works quite well, but I’m troubled by the amount of unforced LA border crossing, especially between the Cheshire UAs and between Lancs and Merseyside / Gtr Manchester. (The operative word here is ‘unforced’.)
- I’m still seriously thinking about the Bramhall switch.
- Maybe this comment belongs in the Yorkshire thread, but I’m rather disconcerted by the revelation that I want ‘to randomly carve bits out of Bradford’. I’d been under the impression that what I was doing was excising with surgical precision strategically-chosen Bradford wards to create the best overall map. Thanks for putting me straight, Minion.
- Seriously, town-splitting controversies on several regional threads have prompted me to think about the general issues involved in deciding that splitting a town is: (a) fine and dandy; (b) undesirable in itself but acceptable in the context of a satisfactory overall plan; (c) to be avoided at (virtually) any cost. I hope to post something in the ‘Policy issues’ thread.
East Anglian Lefty has also posted a comprehensive plan –
- Again, the Widnes-Runcorn split works really well. And Lefty has got all four Northwich wards in the same seat, which is more than a lot of plans (including mine) have managed.
- ‘Worsley and Eccles’ (I’d call it simply ‘Eccles’) is really excellent; I think this is the first plan that not only unites the town of Eccles but gets it in the same seat with Irlam.
- On the other hand, the picture’s much less pretty in Manchester and Stockport. ‘Cities of Salford and Manchester’ will have them out with their pitchforks (or the inner-city equivalent, Molotov cocktails probably); and Lefty, was there really no better arrangement in south Manchester and Stockport?
As an immediate reaction to Swix’s plan, it shares with Lefty’s a willingness to cross the Manchester City boundary on the eastern side. In south Manchester and Stockport it looks much nicer than Lefty’s and its Tameside is particularly good; but the north end of Manchester is another matter, and I agree with Andrew Teale about Bury and Bolton.
Sorry for a long post.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 29, 2016 13:09:55 GMT
You seem to be assuming that because Little Lever and Radcliffe have strong links, the same must be true of Breightmet and Radcliffe.
Well, Breightmet and Little Lever have strong links. And Little Lever and Radcliffe have strong links. So having them in the same seat does logically follow.
Also, Ainsworth in Radclife North and Breightmet do have very strong links. You speak to people in Ainsworth, particularly the western side of it and some of them will claim they live in Breightmet.
As somebody who lived on the western side of Ainsworth for twelve years, all I can say is that wasn't my experience. In fact, the reaction of my parents (who still live in Ainsworth) when I told them about the idea of being associated with Breightmet was pure pitchfork. I have no issues with Little Lever being associated with Radcliffe (indeed my scheme proposes that), it's Breightmet and Tonge Moor that I object to. Keeping Breightmet and Tonge Moor in Bolton seats results in more cohesive seats, less unnecessary change and splitting Bolton proper between only two neat seats instead of three ugly ones. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 29, 2016 13:12:36 GMT
East Anglian Lefty has also posted a comprehensive plan – - Again, the Widnes-Runcorn split works really well. And Lefty has got all four Northwich wards in the same seat, which is more than a lot of plans (including mine) have managed. - ‘Worsley and Eccles’ (I’d call it simply ‘Eccles’) is really excellent; I think this is the first plan that not only unites the town of Eccles but gets it in the same seat with Irlam. - On the other hand, the picture’s much less pretty in Manchester and Stockport. ‘Cities of Salford and Manchester’ will have them out with their pitchforks (or the inner-city equivalent, Molotov cocktails probably); and Lefty, was there really no better arrangement in south Manchester and Stockport? Those criticisms of my plan round Manchester seem more than fair. To be perfectly honest, I went for that arrangement of Salford and Manchester because I doubt many of the residents of the city centre are the sort to write to the BCE (and I picked the name because calling it Manchester Central would just be trolling.) But I'll have to think more about this - some of the plans putting Prestwich in with north Manchester look appealing on a map, and I suspect if I moved away from a least-change approach in Bolton I'd be able to neaten things up elsewhere. And yes, south Manchester and Stockport is a bit of a mess, largely because I was concentrating on not mucking up Tameside and in particular Denton - in which connection, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on town-splitting. I don't know south Manchester well, but my understanding is that the Heatons are becoming increasingly similar to Didsbury. On the other hand, Reddish definitely doesn't fit. I'm wondering if improvements might be possible if you put Didsbury into Wythenshawe, gave Altrincham the east rather than the west of Sale and put Clifford into a Manchester seat, but it'll take me a while to test that properly. If you've got alternative suggestions, I'd be very interested to hear them. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Apr 29, 2016 14:16:22 GMT
I seem to recall that Ribble Estuary was a NW LibDems proposal from the review before laat This is the kind of post that makes me keep coming back to this forum.  |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 29, 2016 14:31:36 GMT
Thanks for the responses to my 'Why not split Runcorn and Widnes question' - seems to have encouraged some more work by those that know the area better.
Having looked more closely at the Cheshire section I have another question - how pitchforky would it be to suggest that the 2 wards of Alsager and Odd Rode leave Cheshire and cross the Regional boundary into a 'Kidsgrove' seat? It seems to me that that is where they have the most natural connections and links to - but again I don't know the area particularly well.
Similarly / related - how would splitting Crewe and Nantwich be perceived? I keep finding myself putting Sandbach in with Crewe and splitting Nantwich off into a Nantwich, Malpas and Winsford type seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 29, 2016 17:07:43 GMT
"And yes, south Manchester and Stockport is a bit of a mess, largely because I was concentrating on not mucking up Tameside and in particular Denton - in which connection, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on town-splitting. I don't know south Manchester well, but my understanding is that the Heatons are becoming increasingly similar to Didsbury. On the other hand, Reddish definitely doesn't fit. I'm wondering if improvements might be possible if you put Didsbury into Wythenshawe, gave Altrincham the east rather than the west of Sale and put Clifford into a Manchester seat, but it'll take me a while to test that properly. If you've got alternative suggestions, I'd be very interested to hear them." Ask and ye shall receive. I have put some (tediously lengthy) thoughts on town-splitting on the Policy thread. Regarding alternative proposals for Manchester more generally: although I think there's much to admire in the various plans submitted in this thread, and in some aspects each of them is better than mine, I am still, on the whole, sticking to what I originally suggested because I think it's the best all-round approach. This is possibly subject to the Bramhall switch, which is causing me a serious dilemma because it brings two of my preferences into sharp conflict: (a) I dislike it because divides two wards that manifestly belong to, and are composed substantially of, the same town (so this isn't a case, like Ossett or Tiptree, where a relatively small proportion of the town is in a different ward that mostly consists of something else); and (b) I like it because it gets rid of a three-borough seat (if UAs count as 'boroughs' for this rule, which I'm not sure about). I can't decide whether I dislike (a) more than I like (b). But I'll keep playing with Plan Builder to try to put together the best elements of the various plans. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 29, 2016 17:35:50 GMT
Thanks for the responses to my 'Why not split Runcorn and Widnes question' - seems to have encouraged some more work by those that know the area better. Having looked more closely at the Cheshire section I have another question - how pitchforky would it be to suggest that the 2 wards of Alsager and Odd Rode leave Cheshire and cross the Regional boundary into a 'Kidsgrove' seat? It seems to me that that is where they have the most natural connections and links to - but again I don't know the area particularly well. Similarly / related - how would splitting Crewe and Nantwich be perceived? I keep finding myself putting Sandbach in with Crewe and splitting Nantwich off into a Nantwich, Malpas and Winsford type seat. Alsager & Odd Rode have historically had strong links with North Staffs; possibly less so now. Nantwich would not relish being paired with Winsford. Even less than they like being paired with Crewe!  And, of course, they are in different UAs. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 29, 2016 17:52:39 GMT
Wow – There’s been some great stuff posted here of late. Just to respond to Adrian’s comments about my plan – 1. I prefer names that will prompt the reasonably well-informed citizen to think, e.g. ‘Knutsford? Oh yes, I’ve heard of that. It’s in Cheshire.’ As opposed to ‘Tatton? Did I hear that correctly? Where the blazes is that?’ Likewise a name like ‘Bucklow’ has meaning only to people with an interest in historical administrative geography. I happen to be such a person, but what about the 99.9% that aren’t? But having said all that, I am trying (not always with success) not to get too much exercised about names, and to keep my focus on the actual boundaries. 2. On the infra-Cheshire border: I understand Adrian’s reservations but surely, for the present purpose, we take LA boundaries as we find them. If the LA boundary is a bad one, there’s a separate process for addressing that. 3. Thanks for the kind comment about the Blackley and Altrincham seats. I agree that the latter’s boundary is very snug around Altrincham town, but what can you do? And although my teachers told me at school that self-praise is no recommendation, I’ll add that I was also very happy with Manchester Central, which, by including Cheetham and excluding remoter wards like Moston, seems to me to capture the heart of Manchester rather better than most other proposals or the existing seat. 4. I’m rather warming to the Stretford and Irlam seat now that I’ve discovered there was a constituency with remarkably similar boundaries from 1918 until at least 1945. I agree 100% about the Eccles split but at least I didn’t invent it; it exists in the current map. 1. I'm not sure how much it matters that the MP's locale is recognisable elsewhere (If it did matter, LAs wouldn't choose ridiculous names like Tendring or Hambleton), it's more important that the people in the seat feel they are being represented. 2. Yabbut - the Cheshire-GMC border is slightly higher up the hierarchy of significance, and you're happy to play fast and loose with that! 3. Your Manchester is good overall. 4. Well, it's currently split two ways; your plan splits it in three. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 29, 2016 18:08:49 GMT
Thanks for the responses to my 'Why not split Runcorn and Widnes question' - seems to have encouraged some more work by those that know the area better. Having looked more closely at the Cheshire section I have another question - how pitchforky would it be to suggest that the 2 wards of Alsager and Odd Rode leave Cheshire and cross the Regional boundary into a 'Kidsgrove' seat? It seems to me that that is where they have the most natural connections and links to - but again I don't know the area particularly well. Similarly / related - how would splitting Crewe and Nantwich be perceived? I keep finding myself putting Sandbach in with Crewe and splitting Nantwich off into a Nantwich, Malpas and Winsford type seat. The odd people of Al's Acre are very happy being in Cheshire and have resisted previous desultory attempts at boundary revision. I would like to see some people propose cross-regional plans though, to test the water. The use of the regions is not legally binding and it does worry me that some good solutions to boundary problems will be discounted for the sake of the BCE's convenience. Local people wouldn't be averse to splitting Crewe and Nantwich but most local politicians wouldn't be happy. They were in separate seats till 1979 though - there was a small Crewe, Sandbach & Alsager seat which you can kind of recreate as long as you put Shavington in Nantwich. p.s. I notice that that makes a Congleton & Northwich seat possible  but anyone who suggested such a thing would be wasting their bandwidth! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 18:29:47 GMT
I seem to recall that Ribble Estuary was a NW LibDems proposal from the review before laat This is the kind of post that makes me keep coming back to this forum. My memory is of a seat attaching bits of Fylde, Preston and S Ribble together into a Ribble Estuary seat. I did not support it! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 29, 2016 20:58:41 GMT
I still haven't come up with a satisfactory arrangement round the south of Manchester, but here's another take on the north-west of Greater Manchester which I think is probably an improvement:  Wigan (72733) - unchanged Makerfield (71857) - unchanged Leigh (74381) - gains Atherton, loses Astley Mosley Common Bolton West (77948) - loses Atherton, gains Hulton and Rumworth Bolton North East (72603) - gains Great Lever Bury North (71594) - gains Unsworth Radcliffe cum Farnworth (77546) - successor to Bury South, narrowly. Loses Holyrood, Sedgeley, St. Mary's and Unsworth, gains Darcy Lever & Little Lever, Harper Green, Farnworth and Kearsley Prestwich & Cheetham (74570) - successor to Blackley & Broughton. Triborough seat. From Manchester: Cheetham, Crumpsall and Higher Blackley; from Salford: Kersal and Broughton; from Bury: Holyrood, Sedgeley, St. Mary's Manchester Central (74175) - contains a little less than half of the present Central seat. Made up of City Centre, Ancoats & Clayton, Miles Platting & Newton Heath, Moston, Harpurhey and Charlestown, plus Ordsall from Salford Salford & Eccles (73119) - loses Ordsall and Swinton North, gains Winton and Barton Worsley (72902) - successor to Worsley & Eccles South, loses Winton and Barton, gains Astley Mosley Common and Swinton North Justification follows: Whilst you can leave the three Wigan seats unchanged, currently the town of Atherton is split between Leigh (Atherleigh ward) and Bolton West (Atherton ward). So putting Atherton into Leigh and shifting out Ashley looks like a clear improvement. I thought I was going to have to split Eccles, but then I looked a bit closer. Whereas the three wards covering Eccles are fairly cohesive, the Hazelhurst part of Worsley ward feeds fairly seamlessly into Swinton. So I elected to keep Eccles whole and divide Swinton. Having split Swinton once, I didn't want to slice communities in the area further, so I had to reject my original plan of putting Pendlebury in the triborough seat. This forced me to put Ordsall into Manchester Central. Having two seats crossing the Salford-Manchester boundary is sub-optimal, but Ordsall is even less likely to produce an angry postbad for the BCE than City Centre is. Plus it let me improve my original draft, which stuck Higher Blackley into the Central seat. But if you're more worried about minimising local authority boundary crossings, you can put Ordsall back into Salford, Pendlebury into the triborough seat and Higher Blackley into Central (which my notes refer to as Manchester Platting.) Ugly, isn't it? In Bolton, West has to take part of Bolton proper, because if you add Astley Bridge and Bromley Cross then it's too large. The two basic options are to add Astley Bridge and Halliwell, or Hulton and Rumworth. The former tends to force an ugly Bolton Central & Farnworth seat, whereas the latter seems a bit less disruptive. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 29, 2016 21:23:02 GMT
This is the kind of post that makes me keep coming back to this forum. My memory is of a seat attaching bits of Fylde, Preston and S Ribble together into a Ribble Estuary seat. I did not support it! The proposal put forward in the public inquiry was from Ribble Valley Liberal Democrats. The Assistant Commissioner described it like this: "The second [new seat] would be called ‘Ribble Estuary’ and would comprise 2 wards from Chorley Borough, 11 wards from Fylde Borough, 2 wards from South Ribble and 4 wards from the West Lancashire district to the south of the River Ribble." It seems what was actually proposed was this: CHORLEY 14. Eccleston and Mawdesley 18. Lostock FYLDE 1. Ansdell 2. Ashton 3. Central 4. Clifton 6. Fairhaven 9. Heyhouses 10. Kilnhouse 15. Park 17. St Johns 18. St Leonards 21. Warton and Westby SOUTH RIBBLE 16. Little Hoole and Much Hoole 17. Longton and Hutton West WEST LANCASHIRE 11. Hesketh-with-Becconsall 15. North Meols 17. Rufford 23. Tarleton It got a bit of a kicking at the inquiry - not surprisingly! Possibly Lytham St Annes residents are too posh to have pitchforks. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 29, 2016 21:34:09 GMT
That's possibly worse than Mersey Banks. It almost makes me feel bad about mocking Valleys of Ribble and Lune.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 29, 2016 21:42:35 GMT
Having split Swinton once, I didn't want to slice communities in the area further, so I had to reject my original plan of putting Pendlebury in the triborough seat. This forced me to put Ordsall into Manchester Central. Having two seats crossing the Salford-Manchester boundary is sub-optimal, but Ordsall is even less likely to produce an angry postbad for the BCE than City Centre is. Plus it let me improve my original draft, which stuck Higher Blackley into the Central seat. But if you're more worried about minimising local authority boundary crossings, you can put Ordsall back into Salford, Pendlebury into the triborough seat and Higher Blackley into Central (which my notes refer to as Manchester Platting.) Ugly, isn't it? In Bolton, West has to take part of Bolton proper, because if you add Astley Bridge and Bromley Cross then it's too large. The two basic options are to add Astley Bridge and Halliwell, or Hulton and Rumworth. The former tends to force an ugly Bolton Central & Farnworth seat, whereas the latter seems a bit less disruptive. Pendlebury works better with Salford than as part of the triborough seat - its transport links to Prestwich are poor because of the Irwell valley being in the way. I agree with you on Bolton West. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 22:41:23 GMT
My memory is of a seat attaching bits of Fylde, Preston and S Ribble together into a Ribble Estuary seat. I did not support it! The proposal put forward in the public inquiry was from Ribble Valley Liberal Democrats. The Assistant Commissioner described it like this: "The second [new seat] would be called ‘Ribble Estuary’ and would comprise 2 wards from Chorley Borough, 11 wards from Fylde Borough, 2 wards from South Ribble and 4 wards from the West Lancashire district to the south of the River Ribble." It seems what was actually proposed was this: CHORLEY 14. Eccleston and Mawdesley 18. Lostock FYLDE 1. Ansdell 2. Ashton 3. Central 4. Clifton 6. Fairhaven 9. Heyhouses 10. Kilnhouse 15. Park 17. St Johns 18. St Leonards 21. Warton and Westby SOUTH RIBBLE 16. Little Hoole and Much Hoole 17. Longton and Hutton West WEST LANCASHIRE 11. Hesketh-with-Becconsall 15. North Meols 17. Rufford 23. Tarleton It got a bit of a kicking at the inquiry - not surprisingly! Possibly Lytham St Annes residents are too posh to have pitchforks. Good God, that's even worse than the memory. Truly awful. But thanks for telling me it was the RV local assoc and not the NW region, I'm happy to correct that bit. Don't want to blame the wrong people for .... for...THAT. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 30, 2016 9:51:59 GMT
Splitting Widnes and Runcorn is desirable in itself but has also enabled me to come up with a decentish plan for the whole of Cheshire and Greater Manchester without splitting wards where I had previously failed. The Stockport seats verymessy and I hadn't initially planned to cross the WIgan/Warrington boundary (I got to Wigan last and found myself short of voters) but I'm generally happy with this   |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 30, 2016 10:02:45 GMT
Not bad in NW Gt Mcr; however, if you're only going to move one Manchester ward into Bury South then on community links it should be Crumpsall rather than Higher Blackley. Would the numbers still work if you put Crumpsall into Bury South, Moston back into Manchester Central and Higher Blackley into Heywood and Middleton?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 30, 2016 10:07:38 GMT
Those numbers would work yes (with Manchester Cheetham being 5 electors below the upper limit!)
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 30, 2016 14:29:51 GMT
Remembering some of the stuff that I read here or that bugged me from my first try, but unwilling to study any actual proposals, here's a radically new second try (ie this is what I do when I'm bored and waiting for the most important game of the year to begin). You could call it Bite Every Bullet.  Lancashire (with Blackpool and Blackburn) now stands alone for 14 seats which really should have been at least my starting point for drawing. Still happy with my Blackpool/Fylde map. If you don't want to pair half of Preston with either half of Lancaster or points north and beyond, Ribble & Lune (I didn't call it that) is unavoidable. It's come out less bad than I thought. There are two Chorley wards in S Ribble at current - evidently they have less ties to the rest of the seat than other areas, so of course the rules say one of them can & should be used for West Lancs. Avoiding orphan wards is a good policy but is not part of the rules.  (Oh, just noticed a map error. Of course North Meols ward belongs to South Ribble, not Southport.) Looking for something to bring Blackburn up to quota, Lower Darren within the motorway is the obvious first place to look. As it happens, if you keep Darwen with Rossendale, that works out. (While if you bring Bolton W and SE up to size with NE wards and then use Darwen to bring Bolton NE to size because it fits like a jigsaw puzzle, you need Lower Darwen and Blackburn must look elsewhere.) And obviously, trying to keep the cities together, you're left with a seat of What Fits Nowhere. Tradition dictates that such a seat in the center of a county be named Mid Xshire.   Not crossing the Lancashire border = splitting Formby. Liverpool can still stand alone and be somewhat minimum changey by dissolving Wavertree. (One West Derby ward has gone into Walton because it gets pretty crazy otherwise.) So there is no reason to link it with Bootle; Maghull etc won't like it but within this alignment it can't be helped (it's not as if Leyland would have liked my other plan's Leyland & Skem seat.) Wirral just shows a different alignment here because I can; still agnostic.  There is only one seat crossing the Knowsley-Halton line, only one seat crossing the St Helens-Halton line, only one seat crossing the Halton-West Cheshire line, only one seat crossing the West Cheshire-East Cheshire line, and there's even only one seat crossing the East Cheshire-Greater Manchester line. Cross of the St Helens-Knowsley line remains in its current place, no unnecessary pairing for Warrington (still the same map as last time: rather than split Great Sankey I united the town centre in South.) St Helens North and Crewe & Nantwich retained unchanged. So, what's not to like?   Wigan seats still unchanged (there's that Atherton switch, and it may make sense, but not in this map. Otherwise those seats ought not to be messed with.) Evidently if you don't want to split Sale, this is the way to go.  Eccles is united and even includes Irlam. Swinton's not split either. Oh yeah, Bolton is brought up to size using the northwest bit of Salford borough (I just notice that "Farnworth" is in three boroughs. Damn, I had been intending to avoid those.) Manchester has been given the Belfast / Nottingham treatment. Chorlton is in Stretford & Urmston as shown earlier, Wythenshawe does its own thing anyways, Blackley is moved into Salford, Failsworth is drawn into, basically, Blackley, Gorton has absorbed Heatons. (At first I had a Gorton & Denton seat and a Stockport with one Manchester ward seat, then I noticed that I had split Reddish and rotated the whole thing clockwise.) I was fully intending to keep Oldham and Tameside (and Rochdale!) as in the earlier map, but I realized I had drawn myself into a corner where I had massively undersized seats in Bolton and Bury left, and started looking for population, and Salford & Blackley only arose in consequence of that - previously there'd been a Blackley seat and Failsworth had been in Oldham West. And after having thus shifted my problem into Oldham... I came up with this crazy remapping in Oldham and Tameside. (This also explains why things are nowhere near in order at the left, by the way.) What town besides Oldham is split? Sure, they're not paired with what they need to be paired with (and Ashton is cropped pretty closely), but... This is how I assume the last commission drew maps. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 30, 2016 15:35:28 GMT
Pendlebury works better with Salford than as part of the triborough seat - its transport links to Prestwich are poor because of the Irwell valley being in the way. Could this be fixed with simplish switches in my second plan, since it shares that feature and no thought went into it besides "hmmm... I seem to have created too many too large seats"? |
|
but anyone who suggested such a thing would be wasting their bandwidth!
(Oh, just noticed a map error. Of course North Meols ward belongs to South Ribble, not Southport.)
