2018 Review — North West England

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Because there'll be bloody revolution from the landladies of Blackpool and the pensioners of St Anne's?

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2016 20:15:32 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Because there'll be bloody revolution from the landladies of Blackpool and the pensioners of St Anne's?

Exactly so.

[An Sionnach Flannbhuí]

Westmorland takes in Grange over Sands, but what for this?

[Clarko]

Will Boundary Assistant be updated for the 2018 review, or is that going to be a big job?

[maxque]

Feb 29, 2016 11:19:49 GMT Clarko said:

Will Boundary Assistant be updated for the 2018 review, or is that going to be a big job?

Someone contacted him and said in another thread than it should be updated for England and Wales in a couple of weeks.

For Scotland, it will be longer, as the numbers aren't published yet and shouldn't be before several weeks (Boundary Commission is very busy with the current rewarding of all local authorities in Scotland).

[Clarko]

Feb 29, 2016 14:26:11 GMT maxque said:

Feb 29, 2016 11:19:49 GMT Clarko said:

Will Boundary Assistant be updated for the 2018 review, or is that going to be a big job?

Someone contacted him and said in another thread than it should be updated for England and Wales in a couple of weeks.

For Scotland, it will be longer, as the numbers aren't published yet and shouldn't be before several weeks (Boundary Commission is very busy with the current rewarding of all local authorities in Scotland).

Perfect - thanks!

[Pete Whitehead]

Merseyside.
It would be virtually impossible to get three seats within the Wirral so it makes sense to move one of the wards out to Cheshire - either Eastham or Heswall would do, I've chosen to move Heswall out.



This then enables

Birkenhead - the current seat plus Upton 72,957
Wallasey - the current seat plus Hoylake 74,240
Bebington - the leftovers of Wirral South (less Heswall) and Wirral West (less Hoylake and Upton) 77,137

North of the Mersey was relatively straightforward although the Liverpool city boundary needed to be crossed a bit more often than I'd have liked. The two St Helens seats plus Garston & Halewood are unchanged

Southport - gains Harrington - 74,641
Crosby - loses Harrington (compared with Sefton Central) and gains Church and Victoria - 75,368
Bootle & Walton - loses Church and Victoria, gains Anfield, County, Warbreck - 77,504
Liverpool Riverside - loses Greenbank and Mossley Hill, gains Everton, Kensington , Picton - 76,054
Liverpool West Derby - loses Knotty Ash, gains Fazakerley and Clubmoor - 73,530
Liverpool Wavertree - loses Kensington and Picton, gains Knotty Ash, Mossley Hill and the Knowsley ward of Swanside 74,847
Knowsley - loses Swanside - 72,597

[The Bishop]

Heswall is pretty much self contained in a way Eastham isn't, so that decision makes sense. Helps from a partisan POV too, of course

[Pete Whitehead]

Mossley Hill and Picton can probably be swapped back as there's no need to do that mathematically (it was necessary from an earlier draft)

In fact no changes needed in the boundary between Riverside and Wavertree - so Riverside just gains Everton and Wavertree gains Knotty Ash and Swanside

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 2, 2016 11:31:20 GMT The Bishop said:

Heswall is pretty much self contained in a way Eastham isn't, so that decision makes sense. Helps from a partisan POV too, of course

Yes the first part of your reasoning corresponds with mine. Not sure you are correct about the latter. This seat still looks a pretty good bet for the Tories and Heswall isn't exactly going to help you in Ellesmere Port (though you can probably bear it)

[The Bishop]

Though its not as safe for the Tories as the expanded Wirral W that was once mooted, I'm sure Esther McVey still has wistful thoughts about that one.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Could you avoid swapping Swanside by altering Garston & Halewood, or do the numbers just not work?

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 2, 2016 11:41:51 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Could you avoid swapping Swanside by altering Garston & Halewood, or do the numbers just not work?

You could add Roby but it wouldn't have enough voters to lose a Liverpool ward. If it gained two Knowsley wards then Knowsley would fall below size and St Helens South can't spare any so unless there's a configuration of the remaining Liverpool wards I've missed I think its unavoidable

[Khunanup]

Mar 2, 2016 11:33:47 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Mar 2, 2016 11:31:20 GMT The Bishop said:

Heswall is pretty much self contained in a way Eastham isn't, so that decision makes sense. Helps from a partisan POV too, of course

Yes the first part of your reasoning corresponds with mine. Not sure you are correct about the latter. This seat still looks a pretty good bet for the Tories and Heswall isn't exactly going to help you in Ellesmere Port (though you can probably bear it)

Agreed about Heswall rather than Eastham.

I'd call 'Bebington', Bebington & West Kirby and as you've gone over to Hoylake with Wallasey perhaps Wirral North would be more appropriate.

I'll have a fiddle around because I'd personally prefer a configuration that keeps a Wirral West and Wirral South because the alternatives just make little sense (ie the Bebington and West Kirby seat). This does mean constructing a Birkenhead and Wallasey seat which would create howls of derision from the locals I'm sure, but it is one continuous urban sprawl on the east of the peninsular so it would be a cohesive seat.

I'm also not from either Birkenhead or Wallasey so I don't really care either.

[Pete Whitehead]

I really like my plan for Lancashire - not sure that everyone will



Lancaster & Morecambe - all the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham plus Bolton & Slyne 76,426
Valleys of Lune and Ribble - (OK I won't claim originality on the name here ) the rural wards of Lancaster district, the Garstang area of Wyre, the Rural wards of Preston (plus Lea) and most of Ribble Valley 73,392
Pendle with Clitheroe - the whole of Pendle borough plus the Clitheroe area from Ribble Valley - 77,010
Burnley - the whole of Burnley plus Read & Simonstone and Sabden from Ribble Valley and ALtham and Clayton-le Moors from Hyndburn 74,029
Rossendale & Accrington - the whole of Rossendale borough plus 8 wards from Hyndburn roughly covering Accrington - 78,025
Blackburn - gains Fernhusrt - 72,816
Darwen - The Darwen area of Blackburn & Darwen, the Great HArwood, Rishton and Oswaldtwistle areas of Hyndburn and Clayton-le-Woods plus foour Eastern rural wards from Chorley - 72.262
Chorley & Leyland - the remainder of Chorley less Lostock and Eccleston plus the 7 wards of Leyland from South Ribble 73,550
South Ribble - South Ribble less Leyland, plus Exxleston 7 Mawdesley and Lostock from Chorley and Hesketh and North Meols fom West Lancs - 72,942
West Lancashire - the current seat plus Rufford and Tarleton - 76,334
Preston - the whole borough less the two rural wards and Lea - 77,324
Fylde - the whole borough plus the Wyre wards of Great Eccleston, Hambleton, Pilling and Preesall
Blackpool North and Wyre - All of Wyre district west of the Wyre plus the Blackpool wards of Anchorsholme, Bispham, Ingthorpe and Norbreck - 76,834
Blackpool South - the rest of Blackpool - 77,889

[Deleted]

Pete, if you can keep Tarleton with Hesketh Bank, all the better, but from my own rough workings out, I can't see much of a difference to that model. I'm finding Western Lancashire very difficult....

[Pete Whitehead]

You can move Tarleton into South Ribble and stay within quota - it would certainly look better

[Deleted]

Tarleton is closely linked to HB, splitting them is not advised.

Can't wait to see the Valleys seat in action 8)

[islington]

Regarding 'Valleys of Lune and Ribble', above, you could do worse than simply call it 'North Lancashire'.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2016 18:44:42 GMT islington said:

Regarding 'Valleys of Lune and Ribble', above, you could do worse than simply call it 'North Lancashire'.

Ugh, no.