Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 15:51:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 16:41:36 GMT
Woah woah woah. "Mid Lancashire" is............er..........
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Apr 30, 2016 17:11:21 GMT
Mid Lancashire is terrible, and I'm not at all keen on a seat linked by the Trough of Bowland.
Pendlebury as above, though Crumpsall still looks awkward.
I doubt the commission will go for the two crossings of Merseyside-Halton. They weren't averse to Bootle and North Liverpool last time. This may also be linked to how Tameside and Oldham have gone so wrong- they need an extra ward or two and the Merseyside-Halton link takes 13000 electors out of Cheshire/Manchester.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 18:15:36 GMT
Trying to not have a Mid Lancashire (either the one above or the (in)famous one we suggested at the public meetings in the zombie review) I've come up with this...  |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Apr 30, 2016 19:55:51 GMT
That Wyre and Bowland and Ribble Valley South West could be worse, Ribble Valley SW would be decent if tidied up around Leyland, but Rossendale/Winter Hill is not great whatever combination of wards it involves. I'd like to see how much post Lancaster, Poulton-le-Fylde, Leyland, Chorley, Whittle-le-Woods, Haslingden and Whalley generated for the commission if they proposed that arrangement.
I think this illustrates the problem of keeping Preston whole - places North/West generally don't go very well with places South/East of Preston, and Blackburn half-doughnuts are worse.
The options for working around the above Preston seat appear to be(other than the above and the old South Fylde):
Carnforth and Bamber Bridge
Carnforth and Clitheroe / Bamber Bridge and Oswaldtwistle
Carnforth and Blackburn Rural / Clayton-le-Woods and Rawtenstall
All of which are pretty objectionable. Carnforth and Blackburn Rural (Langho/Wilpshire/Mellor are basically this) possibly the least so, but that name really doesn't sound right, and the resulting moorland seat is bad.
And sorry if I have just correctly recalled writing a similar piece last month.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 20:40:04 GMT
That Wyre and Bowland and Ribble Valley South West could be worse, Ribble Valley SW would be decent if tidied up around Leyland, but Rossendale/Winter Hill is not great whatever combination of wards it involves. I'd like to see how much post Lancaster, Poulton-le-Fylde, Leyland, Chorley, Whittle-le-Woods, Haslingden and Whalley generated for the commission if they proposed that arrangement. I think this illustrates the problem of keeping Preston whole - places North/West generally don't go very well with places South/East of Preston, and Blackburn half-doughnuts are worse. The options for working around the above Preston seat appear to be(other than the above and the old South Fylde): Carnforth and Bamber Bridge Carnforth and Clitheroe / Bamber Bridge and Oswaldtwistle Carnforth and Blackburn Rural / Clayton-le-Woods and Rawtenstall All of which are pretty objectionable. Carnforth and Blackburn Rural (Langho/Wilpshire/Mellor are basically this) possibly the least so, but that name really doesn't sound right, and the resulting moorland seat is bad. And sorry if I have just correctly recalled writing a similar piece last month. I've tried to maintain that which we know are fairly certain to be chosen by the Commission. They won't go north to Cumbria, and Morecambe has to go somewhere, so it must be attached to Lancaster. Blackpool and Fylde will be pretty much as per the Zombie Review. Blackburn just needs one ward adding to be in quota, Pendle has only one of two options available to it. Put all those things into the mix and there's almost no wiggle room. Going through this thread is interesting because there seems to be very common themes for Lancashire around which various posters are coalescing. Somewhere within the slightly different but largely similar options is the Commission's initial proposals. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 1, 2016 8:22:03 GMT
Woah woah woah. "Mid Lancashire" is............er.......... Consciously horrible.  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 1, 2016 19:18:33 GMT
Minion's error with North Meols gave me an idea. Thus far, everybody has split Formby in half, but what if instead you just add a couple of wards from West Lancashire? It turns out you can make a very satisfactory least change map:  Southport (71391) - gains North Meols and Hesketh-with-Becconsall Sefton Central (76378) - gains Victoria Bootle & Walton (77290) - successor to Bootle, loses Victoria, gains Warbreck and County Liverpool West Derby (73950) - loses Tuebrook & Stoneycroft, gains Clubmoor and Fazakerley Liverpool Riverside (77765) - loses Greenbank, gains Anfield and Everton Liverpool Wavertree (76261) - gains Greenbank and Tuebrook & Stoneycroft Garston & Halewood (71942) - unchanged St. Helens South & Whiston (74885) - unchanged St. Helens North (72060) - unchanged Knowsley (77916) - unchanged Given that you have to abolish a seat, I'd say that's really a very minor set of alterations. Formby is kept whole and whilst you do have to split Crosby, that already happens and the Church ward isn't horrendously out of place in Bootle anyway. I haven't mapped out the rest of Lancashire, but losing 6000 electors shouldn't be a great problem. The West Lancashire seat could then take the rest of the district. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on May 1, 2016 19:52:54 GMT
A very neat idea. I have no problem with crossing what many see as an internal Lancashire border. Would this not be the perfect opportunity to rename Sefton Central to something less atrocious, though?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 20:43:44 GMT
Minion's error with North Meols gave me an idea. Thus far, everybody has split Formby in half, but what if instead you just add a couple of wards from West Lancashire? It turns out you can make a very satisfactory least change map: Southport (71391) - gains North Meols and Hesketh-with-Becconsall Sefton Central (76378) - gains Victoria Bootle & Walton (77290) - successor to Bootle, loses Victoria, gains Warbreck and County Liverpool West Derby (73950) - loses Tuebrook & Stoneycroft, gains Clubmoor and Fazakerley Liverpool Riverside (77765) - loses Greenbank, gains Anfield and Everton Liverpool Wavertree (76261) - gains Greenbank and Tuebrook & Stoneycroft Garston & Halewood (71942) - unchanged St. Helens South & Whiston (74885) - unchanged St. Helens North (72060) - unchanged Knowsley (77916) - unchanged Given that you have to abolish a seat, I'd say that's really a very minor set of alterations. Formby is kept whole and whilst you do have to split Crosby, that already happens and the Church ward isn't horrendously out of place in Bootle anyway. I haven't mapped out the rest of Lancashire, but losing 6000 electors shouldn't be a great problem. The West Lancashire seat could then take the rest of the district. Those "Lancashire Marsh towns" look towards Southport more than Leyland, and it's easier to travel west than east, so a Southport that goes east makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 2, 2016 14:25:52 GMT
I've been toying with a couple of Lancashire maps, but in most respects I don't think they're very different to iterations others have already posted here. It strikes me that rather than presenting one of those, it'd be more productive to discuss some of the underlying assumptions which force particular maps and use those as a basis for further discussion:
West Lancashire - slightly too large for a single seat, but I can't see any good reason to break up the current West Lancashire seat. If you're not going to treat Lancashire alone, here is where you cross the boundary. Andrew tried putting Orrell into West Lancashire and I've tried putting some of the Marsh Towns into Southport. Both have things to be said in their favour (the M6 is a strong boundary; the Marsh Towns primarily look to Southport) so it's a question of whether they help elsewhere. I think it definitely helps in Sefton by keeping Formby whole, but removing Orrell forces too much reorganisation in Wigan for me to be keen on the idea.
In any case, you're going to end up with 2-5 wards in the district that aren't in the West Lancashire seat and realistically they should be in the north. It'd be five if you add Orrell (losing Scarisbrick) and either two or three if you cross the boundary with Southport or South Ribble (with West Lancashire definitely gaining Rufford, and possibly Tarleton.) It is possible to put the two northern wards into Southport and Tarleton into South Ribble, but I'd avoid it unless you've got yourself into problems round Bamber Bridge.
Chorley - again, slightly too large for a single seat. The current Chorley constituency is very coherent (aside from Buckshaw Village, but fixing that requires a PABR, not a parliamentary review) and I can't see anything to recommend any of the efforts that put the east of it in with Darwen. So for me it's a question of whether you leave it as is or add Eccleston & Mawdesley, and once again that is fundamentally determined by what you do round Bamber Bridge.
Blackburn and Rossendale - the only sensible thing to do with Blackburn is to add Fernhurst. There's no possible discussion to be had there. Which means Darwen has to go with Rossendale. Transport links are still crap, but it's not like they're any worse than they were in 1983 and neither portion has a better partner.
Hyndburn - you need to add about 15,000 electors to the seat, assuming you keep it whole (and the only clean way to divide it is to hive off Great Harwood, which hasn't helped in any map I've tried yet.) So essentially you have a choice between adding Padiham and random bits of Burnley (the ward boundaries really don't help), or adding the southern bit of South Ribble. Personally I think the former is very ugly, whilst the latter is unlovely but probably the least worst option.
Burnley - whatever you do, you're going to have to add Brierfield. Whether you then add the rural west of the district or Nelson or both is ultimately about what you've done in Hyndburn. In any case, I can't see any good reason to split Nelson.
Preston - adding Fulwood to the current seat is very logical, but it makes the North Lancashire seat worse than it already has to be and makes it difficult to put the eastern bit of South Ribble somewhere sensible. The alternative is to add Bamber Bridge to Preston, which doesn't fit as well as Fulwood, but isn't terrible and lets you make the other seats better. Essentially, it's a question about whether you'd rather have one appalling seat or several bad but acceptable ones.
Outside the city, you also have to decide whether you want the rural wards (and also Lea, and possibly Ingol or Larches too) to go into North Lancashire or Fylde. That's basically a consequence of the decisions you make around Blackpool and Pendle. Neither option is obviously worse, although in the case of North Lancashire's it worth bringing up the BCE's dislike of four-authority seats last time.
Fylde & Blackpool - it's clearly not going to be acceptable to cross the Blackpool-Fylde boundary. Lytham St. Annes is functionally part of Blackpool, but given that you can make two seats out of Blackpool and areas that won't throw a hissy fit about sharing a seat with it, it's simpler to leave it alone. So that means that you can either get up to numbers from Poulton-le-Fylde or from peripheral bits of Preston (as at present.)
If you go for the former option, you can't get two seats from the remaining area east of the Wyre and you'll have to add the Preesall and Hambleton & Stalmine wards. To get from these wards to the rest of the seat, you have to go through Fylde district. At first I thought this was a problem, but I've since reconsidered as a) those wards are in the Blackpool TTWA (I think - I can't find a good large version of the 2011 TTWA map online anywhere) and b) the bit of Fylde they run through is both short and thinly populated, so I don't think it's a serious barrier. So I personally think either option is permissible.
Morecambe & Lancaster - I'm fairly convinced that combining these two urban areas it the only plausible solution. It's not like they're so different in character that it's ludicrous to put them together - if that were true, Morecambe & Lunesdale wouldn't contain Skerton, which is definitely a part of Lancaster. And once you've put the centre of Lancaster into the seat, it surely makes more sense to put Lunesdale into the North Lancashire seat than it does to put Scotforth there. Does anybody have any counter-arguments against this?
I haven't covered Ribble Valley or the east of Wyre in any detail, because it's always going to be drawn based on decisions you've made elsewhere - it's just a matter of making sure those decisions don't make it too idiotic.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the issues I've raised, or any other issues I've overlooked?
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 2, 2016 16:46:44 GMT
Minion's error with North Meols gave me an idea. Thus far, everybody has split Formby in half My first map didn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 24, 2016 23:38:30 GMT
Revised proposals for Greater Manchester outside Stockport (a really problematic area for boundary drawing with the current parameters!)
1. Stalybridge & Hyde (77,173) As the current Stalybridge & Hyde constituency minus Mossley ward, but plus both Denton North East and Denton South wards (Denton West contains little of Denton itself).
2. Ashton-under-Lyne (77,564) The rest of Tameside; this version of Ashton-under-Lyne does not contain the town of Failsworth.
3. Oldham East & Saddleworth (77,067) Gains Medlock Vale ward.
4. Oldham West (76,684) As Oldham West & Royton minus Medlock Vale ward but plus both Failsworth wards.
5. Altrincham & Sale (77,226) Unites all of Sale by gaining all Sale wards currently in Wythenshawe & Sale East, loses Bowdon, and both Hale wards to a recreated Cheshire constituency of Knutsford.
6. Stretford & Urmston (75,804) Loses Bucklow St Martins ward, gains Irlam and Cadishead wards from the Salford area.
7. Worsley (74,004) The Salford wards of Boothsdown & Ellenbrook, Worsley, Swinton North/South, Walkden North/South, Little Hulton, Pendlebury, and Claremont.
8. Salford & Eccles (73,741) The Salford wards of Ordsall, Kersall, Irwell Riverside, Winton, Eccles, Barton, Weaste & Seedley, Langworthy, and Broughton.
9. Wigan (72,733) Unchanged.
10. Leigh (73,070) Unchanged.
11. Makerfield (71,857) Unchanged.
12. Westhoughton & Horwich (77,384) The Bolton wards of Horwich & Blackrod, Horwich North East, Runworth, Harper Green, Hulton, Westhoughton North & Chew Moor, Westhoughton South, and the Wigan ward of Atherton.
13. Bolton (75,048) As Bolton North East minus Bradshaw and Brightmet wards, but plus Great Lever, Heaton & Lostock and Smithills wards.
14. Radcliffe-cum-Farnworth (78,335) The rest of Bolton (including Farnworth) plus all three Radcliffe wards and Pilkington Park ward.
15. Bury (71,594). As Bury North plus Unsworth ward.
16. Manchester Blackley & Prestwich (76,135). The remainder of Bury (including Prestwich) plus the Manchester wards of Higher Blackley, Crumpsall Cheetham, and Charlestown.
17. Heywood & Middleton (75,880) Unchanged.
18. Rochdale (72,530) Unchanged.
19. Manchester Wythenshawe (74,315) Loses all Sale wards, gains Didsbury East/West.
20. Manchester Withington (75,344). Loses Didsbury East/West, gains Whalley Range and Fallowfield.
21. Manchester Gorton (74,124) Loses Whalley Range and Fallowfield, gains Bradford and Ardwick.
22. Manchester Central (77,241). Loses Bradford and Ardwick, gains Harpurhey.
Abolished constituencies: Bolton South East, Bury South, Denton & Reddish.
You can keep some Manchester seats completely intact (Wythenshawe & Sale East, Withington and Gorton) but that creates serious problems elsewhere...
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 2, 2016 21:07:54 GMT
My proposal for this region, by sub-area in order from what I think will be the least contentious to most outrageous: South East Lancs – 28 seats (-2)  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON (75,880) No change.
LEIGH (73,070) No change.
ROCHDALE (72,530) No change.
WIGAN (72,733) No change.
ORRELL AND WINSTANLEY (71,857) Succeeds Makerfield. No change apart from a correction of the inaccurate name (part of Makerfield lies in the borough of St Helens).
CHADDERTON AND FAILSWORTH (76,684) Succeeds Oldham West & Royton. Loses Medlock Vale, gains both Failsworth wards.
SADDLEWORTH AND MEDLOCK (77,067) Succeeds Oldham East & Saddleworth. Gains Medlock Vale.
DENTON AND REDDISH (75,642) Loses Dukinfield, gains the two Heatons wards from Stockport.
BURY (71,594) Succeeds Bury North. Gains Unsworth.
RADCLIFFE AND PRESTWICH (71,841) Succeeds Bury South. Loses Unsworth, gains Pendlebury.
BOLTON (72,966) Succeeds Bolton North East. Gains Rumworth.
FARNWORTH AND HULTON (73,748) Succeeds Bolton South East. Loses Rumworth, gains Little Hulton and Walken North.
HORWICH AND WESTHOUGHTON (77,228) Succeeds Bolton West. Gains Heath Charnock & Rivington and Adlington & Anderton.
MANCHESTER EAST (72,068) Succeeds Manchester Gorton. Loses Levenshulme and Whalley Range, gains Ardwick and the City Centre.
MANCHESTER NORTH (77,255) Succeeds Blackley & Broughton. Loses Broughton and Kersal, gains Moston and Miles Platting & Newton Heath.
MANCHESTER SOUTH (74,542) Succeeds Manchester Withington. Loses Chorlton, gains Levenshulme.
MANCHESTER WEST AND IRWELL (72,415) The dreaded tri-borough seat. Not really the true successor to the oversized Manchester Central, more the messy result of its implosion.
CHORLTON AND CARRINGTON (71,237) Succeeds Stretford & Urmston. Loses Clifford, gains Chorlton.
DROYLSDEN AND ANCOATS (74,881) Succeeds Ashton-under-Lyne. Loses both Failsworth wards, gains Bradford and Ancoats & Clayton.
SALFORD AND SWINTON (74,047) Succeeds Salford & Eccles. Loses Irwell Riverside, Orsdall and Pendlebury. Gains Winton, Barton and Walkden South.
WORSLEY AND IRLAM (71,775) Succeeds Worsley & Eccles South. Loses Barton, Winton, Little Hulton and both Walkden wards (to different seats). Gains *deep breath* Birchwood, Burtonwood & Winwick, Rixton & Woolston, Culcheth Glazebury & Croft and both Poulton-with-Fearnhead wards.
ACCRINGTON (73,329) Succeeds Hyndburn. Gains Goodshaw, Wilpshire and a much more appropriate name.
BLACKBURN NORTH AND CHORLEY (75,089) Succeeds Chorley. Loses Adlington & Anderton, Astley & Buckshaw, Chisnall, Coppull, Heath Charnock & Rivington, Euxton (x2) and Clayton-le-Woods (x3). Gains Livesey with Pleasington, Little Harwood, Roe Lee, Bastwell, Audley, Shear Brow, Wensley Fold, Corporation Park and Beardwood with Lammack. The next Mr Speaker might have something to say about this one...
BLACKBURN SOUTH AND ROSSENDALE (72,280) Succeeds Rossendale & Darwen. Loses Facit & Shawforth, Goodshaw, Greensclough, Healey & Whitworth, Irwell, Stacksteads and Whitewell. Gains Meadowhead, Mill Hill, Ewood, Fernhurst, Higher Croft, Queen's Park and Shadsworth with Whitebirk.
BURNLEY AND BACUP (75,151) Succeeds Burnley. Loses Gawthorpe and Whittlefield with Ightenhill. Gains Greensclough, Irwell, Healey & Whitworth, Facit & Shawforth, Stacksteads and Whitewell.
LEYLAND AND CLAYTON (71,411) Succeeds South Ribble. Loses Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Rufford, Tarleton, Broad Oak, Charnock, Howick & Priory, Longton & Hutton West, Middleforth and part of New Longton & Hutton East. Gains Astley & Buckshaw, Chisnall, Coppull, Euxton (x2), Clayton-le-Woods (x3) and part of Farington East.
PRESTON SOUTH AND BAMBER (73,353) Succeeds Preston. Loses Ashton, Brookfield, Deepdale, Ingol, Larches, Moor Park, Ribbleton, Tulketh and part of Preston Rural East. Gains Bamber Bridge (x2), Samlesbury & Walton, Coupe Green & Gregson Lane, Walton-le-Dale (x2), Middleforth, Broad Oak, Howick & Priory, Charnock, Lostock Hall, New Longton & Hutton (x2) and all of Farington West.
LATCHFORD AND SANKEY (71,751) Succeeds Warrington North. Loses Birchwood, Burtonwood & Winwick, Culcheth, Glazebury & Croft, Rixton & Woolston and both Poulton-with-Fearnhead wards. Gains Bewsey & Whitecross, Whittle Hall, Great Sankey (x2) and Latchford (x2).
The seats effectively disappearing are Blackburn and Ribble Valley. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 2, 2016 21:24:49 GMT
What did Rozzendale do to you?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 2, 2016 21:33:48 GMT
I don't know, failing to elect the head of the official Remain campaign to Parliament last year, despite his impeccable pedigree (as proved elsewhere, his mother worked with "backward" children)?
I've never been to Rossendale, to be honest, so I have nothing against it. I am aware the plan gets worse as you go along, with more wards swapping around and more general upheaval of potential electors. I expected you to object to something in the Bolton/Bury area since you know it a lot better than I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 2, 2016 21:56:31 GMT
Those Bolton and Bury seats are fine (apart from Pendlebury), although linders and thirdchill aren't going to be happy with you. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 2, 2016 22:14:28 GMT
I'm astounded that I only managed to get one ward hopelessly wrong in your eyes. Salford is a very tricky borough (and 'city') indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 22:20:34 GMT
A radical reworking of Lancashire which I suspect is unnecessary (and blimey, that's a lot for me to say after some of my past creations). Preston divides naturally in half, that is, where Preston meets Fulwood. Your divide appears to cut away the city centre from the rest, and I can't say it works like that "on the ground".
I like your Manchester/Salford and Wigan seats though.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 2, 2016 23:48:48 GMT
A radical reworking of Lancashire which I suspect is unnecessary (and blimey, that's a lot for me to say after some of my past creations). Preston divides naturally in half, that is, where Preston meets Fulwood. Your divide appears to cut away the city centre from the rest, and I can't say it works like that "on the ground". I like your Manchester/Salford and Wigan seats though. I'm glad that the splitting of Preston is accepted in principle as a good solution, and am happy to accept local knowledge for advice as to where would be a more appropriate place to divide it. Thank you. Wigan was easy enough (one name correction and zero boundary changes). As for Salford... I'm not totally content myself with the splitting of Walkden, nor Broughton ending up in a seat with part of Trafford. I am determined to respect the Mersey as the border between Lancs and Cheshire as far as modern ward boundaries allow, though. That's easy enough in Merseyside, but can be a slightly more problematic starting point when dealing with Greater Manchester. |
|
