Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 10:43:44 GMT
*speechless*
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 14, 2016 0:46:05 GMT
You really do not need that many seat crossing the Liverpool boundary. And if you choose to send Southport into Lancashire, there's no need for any change whatsoever in Knowsley. The current city boundary is rather outdated and arbitrary. Southport (and all the seats I have outlined so far except Widnes and Runcorn) lies entirely within Lancashire, always has done and forever will continue to do so. Unlike some members who post in this sub-forum, I am not in possession of a statue of a crazed Whitehall bureaucrat from the early 1970s holding a pen in one hand and a map in the other, before which I genuflect every morning and night. Anyway, we press on... Cheshire – 16 seats (-3)  East Cheshire:
CONGLETON (74,817) Gains Bunbury, plus the part of Brereton Rural it doesn't already have. (Curse those split wards left over from the old two-tier arrangement!)
CREWE AND NANTWICH (76,041) Gains Audlem, plus the part of Leighton it doesn't already have.
NORTHWICH AND MACCLESFIELD (77,542) Succeeds Macclesfield. Loses Bollington, Disley, Prestbury, Sutton and both Poynton wards. Gains Chelford, Shakerley, Hartford & Greenbank, Winnington & Castle, and all of Davenham & Moulton and Witton & Rudheath. Can't have Northwich without Witton (although an existing seat tries its best to do so)!
WILMSLOW AND POYNTON (75,932) Succeeds Tatton, if the current occupant of Number 11 fancies it. Loses Chelford, Handford, High Legh, Knutsford (ouch), Marbury, Shakerley and the remainder of Witton & Rudheath. Gains Bollington, Prestbury, Sutton, both Poynton wards and both Bramhall wards.
STOCKPORT AND CHEADLE (71,216) Succeeds Stockport. Loses both Heatons wards because they belong in a Lancashire seat [see my revised Denton and Reddish in an earlier post]. Gains Cheadle & Gatley and both Cheadle Hulme wards, thereby justifying the name alteration. HAZEL GROVE (73,844) Gains Disley and Stepping Hill. ALTRINCHAM AND SALE (77,173) Succeeds the poorly-named Altrincham and Sale West. Gains Priory. STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE (78,223) Gains Dukinfield, which is presently in a Lancashire constituency where it looks terribly out of place. WYTHENSHAWE (78,129) Succeeds Wythenshawe and Sale East. Loses Priory, gains Heald Green. West Cheshire: BIRKENHEAD (72,957) Gains Upton. WALLASEY (74,240) Gains Hoylake & Meols. HESWALL AND NESTON (76,916) Succeeds Wirral West. Loses Hoylake & Meols and Upton; gains Clatterbridge, Heswall, Ledsham & Manor, Little Neston & Burton, Neston, Parkgate and Willaston & Thornton. ELLESMERE PORT AND BEBINGTON (77,032) Succeeds Ellesmere Port and Neston. Loses Ledsham & Manor, Neston, Parkgate and Willaston & Thornton, plus what it has of Little Neston & Burton and Chester Villages. Gains Bebington, Bromborough and Eastham. CHESTER (73,723) Succeeds City of Chester, which is below quota at the moment, but matching it up to current ward boundaries does the trick. Technically loses a small part of Little Neston & Burton and Farndon, but more than makes up for it by taking in all of Chester Villages (which feels as good a justification as any for dropping the 'City of' part of the name). WARRINGTON AND KNUTSFORD (77,341) Succeeds Warrington South, but also absorbs much of Weaver Vale. Loses Bewsey & Whitecross, Whittle Hall, both Great Sankey wards and both Latchford wards. Gains Daresbury, High Legh, Knutsford, Marbury, Windmill Hill and both Norton wards. WINSFORD AND WEAVER (76,812) Succeeds Eddisbury, which is beset by split wards as it stands. Loses only Audlem and Bunbury in their entirety, and gains all of Frodsham, Helsby and Kinglsey. The rest is achieved by tidying up. Four half-wards are lost completely, but another four come into the fold as whole wards. The seats essentially erased from the map are Wirral South, Weaver Vale and Cheadle, although all could be considered merged with a neighbouring seat (Wirral West, Warrington South and Stockport respectively) and two of the three carry the name into their new home. My plan for the last of those should ensure that Devil Wincarnate reserves a special place in hell for me, unless perhaps he thinks I'm not serious. Constituencies in the two Cheshire UAs created in 2009 are almost inevitably going to be hideous due to LG boundary changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jun 14, 2016 10:53:43 GMT
Actually old chap...I don't think that Stockport and Cheadle seat is too unreasonable! Removing Bramhall and putting in with Poynton works well.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 14, 2016 14:52:41 GMT
Actually old chap...I don't think that Stockport and Cheadle seat is too unreasonable! Removing Bramhall and putting in with Poynton works well.  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,060
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 16, 2016 1:22:25 GMT
Your Wirral seats split West Kirby, Bebington, Bromborough and Ellesmere Port. Though you might need to split one of them to make seats work I can't really see the reason to do all of them. The Bebington and Ellesmere Port splits are particularly novel.
The Bebington and Ellesmere Port seat is particularly painful to look at. I'm going to start to take massy carves up on my native territory personally soon at this rate!
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 16, 2016 11:48:50 GMT
This is a bit of a random thought, triggered by the fact that I hope to put up some pretty maps of the North West later, but - What about Liverpool?
What I mean is, we have had endless debates in other threads about the merits (or demerits) of respecting the municipal boundaries of Birmingham, Sheffield, &c; but no one has mentioned Liverpool. Yet the city has an entitlement (4.07) that allows the allocation of a whole number of seats; moreover, and in contrast to Birmingham and Sheffield, it can be done in a perfectly workable way without ward splits. Yet most plans on here have freely crossed the Liverpool boundary, and my own scheme (for instance) has three seats that cross the boundary and only two seats wholly within the city.
Of course, giving four whole seats to Liverpool has major implications elsewhere, rippling out across the region. On the whole, I don't like these knock-on effects, so I'm adhering to my existing scheme - but even so, I'm surprised no one has made the case for treating Liverpool on its own.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 16, 2016 12:24:51 GMT
Actually, islington, I made such a case months ago, which also involved minimum change. All I needed to do was add Fazakerley ward to Liverpool West Derby, Kirkdale, Central, and Kensington & Fairfield wards to Liverpool Walton, recreate Liverpool Garston, and use the remainder of Liverpool Wavertree and Liverpool Riverside to create a new Liverpool Mossley Hill constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 16, 2016 16:04:55 GMT
Some of my sample constituencies for the North West, starting with Merseyside: 1. Liverpool West Derby: All Liverpool wards currently in the West Derby constituency plus Fazakerley ward. Electorate: 72,921. 2. Liverpool Walton. The Liverpool wards of Anfield, Clubmoor, County, Everton, Warbreck, Old Swan, Kirkdale, and Kensington & Fairfield. Electorate: 78,211. 3. Liverpool Riverside & Wavertree. The Liverpool wards of Central, St Michaels, Mossley Hill, Greenbank, Princes Park, Riverside, Picton, and Wavertree. Electorate: 75,436. 4. Liverpool Garston: The Liverpool wards of Allerton & Hunts Cross, Belle Vale, Childwall, Church, Cressington, Speke-Garston, and Woolton. Electorate: 77,410. 5. Wallasey. All existing wards in Wallasey plus the Wirral ward of Hoylake & Meols. Electorate: 74,240. 6. Birkenhead. All existing wards in Birkenhead plus the Wirral ward of Upton. Electorate: 72,957. 7. Bebington & The Wirral. The Wirral wards of West Kirkby & Thurstaston, Heswall, Pengby & Thingwall, Greasby, Frankby & Irby, Bebington, Clatterbridge, & Bromborough. (The remaining Wirral ward of Eastham will be combined with a redrawn Ellesmere Port & Neston) Electorate: 78,377. 8. Bootle & Crosby Town: The existing constituency of Bootle with the Sefton Central ward of Blundellsands added (which contains the town of Crosby). Electorate: 76,615. 9.Southport. The existing constituency of Southport plus the Harrington ward. Electorate: 74,641. 10. Maghull Valley & Kirkby. The Sefton wards of Ravenmeols, Manor, Park, Sudell, and Molyneux, plus the Knowsley wards of Kirkby Central, Northwood, Shevington, Park, and Whitefield. Electorate: 71,686. 11. Huyton. All remaining wards of Knowsley except Whiston North & Whiston South. Electorate: 75,254. 12. St Helens North. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 72,060. 13. St Helens South. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 74,885. Greenhert You surely did, way back in early March - I've quoted it above. If you treat Liverpool separately, and also wish to respect the Lancs-Merseyside boundary, you need a Sefton-Knowsley seat and this means you run into problems in Kirkby. But your solution, above, is probably the best that can be done (although I make it 72686 rather than 71686 as you have it). It's still a problem, however, to fit three whole seats into the rest of Knowsley plus St Helens, because this area totals only 215508 - barely big enough (avge only 71836). I think you may have double-counted a ward above, but there is a solution that works. St Helens North - Unchanged, as you have it (72060) St Helens South and Prescot - Loses Whiston S and Rainhill; gains Prescot W and Cherryfield (71325) Huyton and Halewood - Remaining wards of Knowsley plus Rainhill (72123) All right, I admit I've put a boundary through Whiston but it's much less bad than the existing boundary through Prescot, which I've got rid of. Nevertheless, there are a lot of problems with this solution so I'm not going to adopt it although others may wish to. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 16, 2016 16:20:12 GMT
I'm definitely not crossing the Liverpool border. Yes, it creates problems in Kirkby, but I don't think that's sufficient reason to include Liverpool in a larger grouping.
Having said that, I don't think it'd be a great loss to society if Knowsley Borough was disbanded and split between Liverpool, St Helens and Sefton.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 16, 2016 17:27:55 GMT
 This may not have worked because I'm not at my usual computer, but I hope I've just uploaded a map of Lancastrian Merseyside that assigns four whole seats to Liverpool and six to the other three boroughs. The non-Liverpool seats are as set out in my earlier post (i.e. Greenhert's plans for Sefton and Kirkby, with my version for St Helens and the rest of Knowsley (St Helens N is unchanged in both schemes). The Liverpool seats are my version, not Greenhert's - I wanted to keep a 'Riverside' seat. Frankly, I'm in two minds about this approach. It's self-evidently a good thing to respect the Liverpool boundary. But the seats elsewhere are less than ideal - particularly in the Kirkby area but also because of the division of Whiston (although this is off-set by the unification of Prescot) and the fact that two seats cross the boundary between Knowsley and St Helens. A further point is that only one existing seat in this area (St Helens N) survives unchanged; whereas a plan with multiple crossings of the Liverpool boundary can preserve at least three (St Helens N, St Helens S, Garston & Halewood). Comments (andor alternative plans) are more than welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 16, 2016 19:19:11 GMT
I'm definitely not crossing the Liverpool border. Yes, it creates problems in Kirkby, but I don't think that's sufficient reason to include Liverpool in a larger grouping. Having said that, I don't think it'd be a great loss to society if Knowsley Borough was disbanded and split between Liverpool, St Helens and Sefton. The initial plans for metropolitan boroughs in the Local Government Act 1972 did not include Knowsley, as that area was originally supposed to be included with the St Helens district. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 17, 2016 0:46:10 GMT
Islington: In order to have a St Helens South seat with Prescot and Whiston, I'd split the silly Prescot West ward, and add a couple of "Lancashire" wards to Southport so that an unsplit Formby could be in the Maghull seat.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jun 17, 2016 6:41:31 GMT
This may not have worked because I'm not at my usual computer, but I hope I've just uploaded a map of Lancastrian Merseyside that assigns four whole seats to Liverpool and six to the other three boroughs. The non-Liverpool seats are as set out in my earlier post (i.e. Greenhert's plans for Sefton and Kirkby, with my version for St Helens and the rest of Knowsley (St Helens N is unchanged in both schemes). The Liverpool seats are my version, not Greenhert's - I wanted to keep a 'Riverside' seat. Frankly, I'm in two minds about this approach. It's self-evidently a good thing to respect the Liverpool boundary. But the seats elsewhere are less than ideal - particularly in the Kirkby area but also because of the division of Whiston (although this is off-set by the unification of Prescot) and the fact that two seats cross the boundary between Knowsley and St Helens. A further point is that only one existing seat in this area (St Helens N) survives unchanged; whereas a plan with multiple crossings of the Liverpool boundary can preserve at least three (St Helens N, St Helens S, Garston & Halewood). Comments (andor alternative plans) are more than welcome. If you follow EAL's suggestion of including the two Marsh Towns wards of West Lancs in Southport to avoid splitting Formby, then you can add Harington to the Maghull seat, put Kirkby Central in the main Knowsley seat, which also takes on Halewood, and have the two St. Helen's seats unchanged. That way Kirkby is still split, but in a slightly cleaner looking way. As to whether this is a good idea, in general I would argue that not crossing the Liverpool boundary should be considered carefully, but if it forces you to do something bad I think crossing it isn't too bad given that several of the surrounding areas are culturally part of the city. So it's a question of how bad you think splitting Kirkby is. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 17, 2016 7:41:46 GMT
To continue with the pretty maps ...  NW-A (Cumbria): 373997 = 5.00 = 5This is very much along the lines that others have posted, maybe with some minor tweaks here and there. CARLISLE - 76825 FURNESS - 78089. Although I don't share the nostalgia for pre-1974 boundaries of some contributors to this forum, I've taken the opportunity to resurrect a familiar shape from days of yore. PENRITH AND COCKERMOUTH - 74503 WESTMORLAND - 72099. It's a close enough approximation to the former county to justify the name. WORKINGTON AND WHITEHAVEN - 72481  NW-B (Lancs): 1051309 = 14.06 = 14In practice this falls into three subgroups: BwD, Rossendale (147807 = 1.98 = 2); Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble V (231638 = 3.10 = 3); everything else (671864 = 8.99 = 9). The plan is the same as I set out upthread (but now with map) apart from a minor adjustment in the Burnley area. The county has to lose two of its current 16 seats so major changes are unavoidable. ACCRINGTON AND PADIHAM - 77446 BLACKBURN - 72816 BLACKPOOL NORTH AND FLEETWOOD - 76834 BLACKPOOL SOUTH - 77889 BURNLEY AND NELSON - 76248 CHORLEY - 73323 CLITHEROE AND COLNE - 77944 FYLDE - 72476 LANCASTER AND MORECAMBE - 76426 NORTH LANCASHIRE - 71448 LEYLAND - 76655 ORMSKIRK - 71897 PRESTON - 74916 ROSSENDALE AND DARWEN - 74991 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 17, 2016 8:08:48 GMT
Continuing with the North West ...   NW-C (Rochdale): 148410 = 1.98 = 2 seatsHEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON - 75880 ROCHDALE - 72530 NW-D (Oldham): 153751 = 2.06 = 2OLDHAM EAST - 77067 OLDHAM WEST - 76684. I've taken the opportunity to simplify the names. NW-E (Gtr Manchester (remainder of), Cheshire East): 1865973 = 24.96 = 25This is the largest group in the whole UK and wish I could reduce it. Note, incidentally, that although I'm aware that many are critical of the boundary between the two Cheshire UAs, the numbers allow me to respect it and this is what I've done. I think we have to accept LA boundaries as we find them; it's not the role of this exercise to decide whether such a boundary is 'good' or 'bad' (that is a matter for the LGBCE). This is all as I've posted before. ALTRINCHAM AND SALE - 77226 ASHTON UNDER LYNE - 77564 BOLTON EAST - 72603 BOLTON WEST - 77948 BURY - 72771. I accept that Radcliffe N isn't a good fit in this seat, but the alternative (Unsworth) seems worse. But I must acknowledge that this is a judgment formed by looking at maps from 200 miles away, and that the local man, Andrew Teale, thinks differently. CHEADLE - 71553 CONGLETON - 74186 CREWE AND NANTWICH - 72890 HAZEL GROVE - 73465 KNUTSFORD - 75536. Note that I've made the 'Bramhall switch' (see discussion upthread), which has the knock-on consequence that Dane Valley ward, instead of being an awkward projecting spur of Macclesfield, is now an awkward projecting spur of this seat. LEIGH - 74381 MACCLESFIELD - 75686 MAKERFIELD - 71857 MANCHESTER BLACKLEY AND PRESTWICH - 77107 MANCHESTER CENTRAL - 77434. I'm particularly pleased to have got Cheetham, an integral part of central Manchester, into this seat. MANCHESTER GORTON - 73688 MANCHESTER MOSS SIDE - 73952 MANCHESTER WYTHENSHAWE - 74315 RADCLIFFE AND FARNWORTH - 76369. See comments on Bury. SALFORD - 73935 STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE - 71050 STOCKPORT AND DENTON - 76088 STRETFORD AND IRLAM - 77141 SWINTON AND WORSLEY - 74495 WIGAN - 72733 |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Jun 17, 2016 8:20:17 GMT
NW-D (Oldham): 153751 = 2.06 = 2OLDHAM EAST - 77067 OLDHAM WEST - 76684. I've taken the opportunity to simplify the names. I can hear the sharpening of pitchforks in Saddleworth from here. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 17, 2016 12:52:17 GMT
Islington: In order to have a St Helens South seat with Prescot and Whiston, I'd split the silly Prescot West ward, and add a couple of "Lancashire" wards to Southport so that an unsplit Formby could be in the Maghull seat. But, Adrian... You've argued that it's a high priority to respect the Liverpool boundary, given that the city's entitlement (4.07) justifies the allocation of a whole number of seats, even if this causes problems in Kirkby. Having slept on it, I think I'm buying this argument. But why then is it not an equally high priority to respect the Lancashire boundary (entitlement 14.06) despite the price that has to be paid in Formby? I mean, are we respecting LA boundaries (when the numbers permit), or are we not? (This is quite apart from the fact that if you don't split Formby, the knock-on effect is a division of Kirkby that may (as YL says) look OK on the map but is actually much more disruptive of that town than Greenhert's ugly but ingenious suggestion.) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 17, 2016 13:41:21 GMT
I have said that each case needs to be taken on its merits. There are various things to take into account here, and on balance I think what I suggested is the best solution (just). Since the met counties were wound up, the boundary between e.g. Liverpool and Knowsley has become almost as important as the boundary between e.g. Sefton and Lancashire. And I'm thinking about what people might want. I think the only thing people will complain about is the splitting of Kirkby, whereas under the alternatives there are more unhappy groups of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 15:20:25 GMT
This thread seems to have agreed over 20+ pages on what the Commission will propose
1) Cumbria as close to the Zombie Review as damnit
2) Lancashire with Lancaster/Morecambe, Clitheroe/Colne, a Wyre based "north Lancashire", two Blackpools and little change south of the Ribble
3) Merseyside close to the Zombie Review except Liverpool where its quota could be an important part in deciding the rest of the region
4) Gtr Manchester the same or near as in some parts, almost identical suggestions for Manchester/Salford/Trafford from various posters
5) Cheshire to be considered along its 'divide'
Andrew Teale did the entire region without a ward split
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 17, 2016 16:27:54 GMT
Doktor B is quite right. There are numerous variations but a high degree of consensus. I found the decision whether to treat Liverpool separately was finely balanced. It's obviously desirable in itself, but it causes problems elsewhere. But on the plus side, it's enabled me to get rid of the current division of Prescot. Anyway, to conclude the North West (also without any ward splits):  NW-F (Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton): 439450 = 5.88 = 6This group is awkwardly small for 6 seats but it can be done. BOOTLE AND CROSBY - 76615 HUYTON AND HALEWOOD - 72123. An inelegantly shaped seat, and it's a shame it had to include a ward from St Helens. But its internal comms are good and, with all the seats in Knowsley and St Helens necessarily on the small side, options are limited. KIRKBY AND MAGHULL - 72686. Some outskirts of Kirkby have been trimmed but the bulk of the town is in the seat. ST HELENS NORTH - 72060 ST HELENS SOUTH AND PRESCOT - 71325. The inclusion of Cherryfield ward is really ungainly (but still the best solution so thanks to Greenhert for it); on the other hand, it's a pleasure to unite Prescot. SOUTHPORT - 74641 NW-G (Liverpool): 303978 = 4.07 = 4LIVERPOOL CENTRAL - 76144. I wanted a seat based on the present Riverside (thus including the heart of the city) but I've changed the name to reflect the inclusion of some wards, e.g. Wavertree, that are well away from the Mersey. LIVERPOOL GARSTON - 76265 LIVERPOOL WALTON - 77628 LIVERPOOL WEST DERBY - 73941 NW-H (Cheshire West & Chester, Halton, Warrington, Wirral): 737434 = 9.86 = 10
BIRKENHEAD - 72003
MID CHESHIRE - 73317
WEST CHESHIRE - 73389
CHESTER - 73723
ELLESMERE PORT AND NESTON - 73599. On reflection I feel that Eastham is the best Wirral ward to include.
WALLASEY - 76052
WARRINGTON NORTH - 71671
WARRINGTON SOUTH - 74460
WIDNES AND RUNCORN - 73158. No longer includes the Halton village/castle area (which is in Mid Cheshire) so a name change is needed.
WIRRAL - 76062. There used to be a seat of this name covering much of the peninsula (but not Birkenhead or Wallasey). 'Bebington and Hoylake' would be another possibility.
|
|
