Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 9:07:56 GMT
Conservatives - NW www.bce2018.org.uk/node/33246/viewCumbria - all "as per Commission's proposals" Lancashire - rejects almost all. (Re)creates "Morecambe and Lunesdale" and makes consequent changes across entire county. This includes "Ribble Valley and Hyndburn West" Merseyside less Wirral - all "as per Commission's proposals" Gtr Manchester, Wirral, Cheshire - significant changes across this subregion, including some I think mentioned here on this forum. Would (re)create "Manchester Ardwick" and "Gorton, Denton and Droylsden". Also suggests "Altrincham and Sale West" and "Eddisbury and Northwich" |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 28, 2017 22:02:21 GMT
"B2.10 North Lancashire We strongly support this seat and proposed a very similar seat (Valleys of Ribble and Lune) at the last, uncompleted, boundary review." Little nod to the unofficial constituency of VoteUK from the NW LibDems I thought that was Mersey Banks?  Disappointing that the LDs think that the proposed Southport involves crossing a county boundary. As for 'Ribble Valley and Hyndburn West' from the Tories... ugh. That makes me shudder! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 22:55:32 GMT
"B2.10 North Lancashire We strongly support this seat and proposed a very similar seat (Valleys of Ribble and Lune) at the last, uncompleted, boundary review." Little nod to the unofficial constituency of VoteUK from the NW LibDems I thought that was Mersey Banks? Disappointing that the LDs think that the proposed Southport involves crossing a county boundary. As for 'Ribble Valley and Hyndburn West' from the Tories... ugh. That makes me shudder! It's a very close tie between the two, I admit! |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 1, 2017 15:04:58 GMT
"Ribble Valley & Hyndburn West" is an awful awful name. [ ...] The Lancs Tory submission looks fairly solid in my view. It's the mess they've made of Bolton/Bury that is bad! Agreed. Why try to salvage the name of an unloved local authority? I think you'll find that Bolton and Bury are both very much in Lancashire. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 1, 2017 15:32:45 GMT
Whalley Range should definitely not go to S&U. That's baffling. I'm cross-posting here to avoid contaminating the Gorton by-election thread with more off-topic discussion. If you're keeping a recognisable Stretford & Urmston, then it needs to take in either a couple of wards from Salford or Altrincham, or an orphan ward from Manchester to bring it into the quota. I think Chorlton looks better on the map than Whalley Range, but the thinking behind it is sound enough. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 1, 2017 15:43:47 GMT
I think you'll find that Bolton and Bury are both very much in Lancashire. Historically, yes. But obviously they are in Greater Manchester, both administratively and within the Greater Manchester BCE sub-region.
There is no obligation to follow the BCE sub-regions. The sub-regions I used were Cumbria (although that isn't a traditional county, of course), Cheshire [plus Widnes] and 'Lancashire without' i.e. Lancs minus Widnes and the Furness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 1, 2017 18:11:54 GMT
There is no obligation to follow the BCE sub-regions. The sub-regions I used were Cumbria (although that isn't a traditional county, of course), Cheshire [plus Widnes] and 'Lancashire without' i.e. Lancs minus Widnes and the Furness.
Yes but for the purposes of my comments, I was referring to the Conservative counter proposal for the Lancs sub-region, which doesn't include Bury or Bolton...
I was there when that counter-proposal was presented to the BCE in October. I wasn't impressed with their Bury and Bolton then or now. I note from the BCE's map that a few people in Unsworth and Whitefield have made the same counter-proposal as me, most of the Radcliffe submissions are along the lines of "what are you doing sticking us in with Farnworth" and almost nobody from Farnworth bothered to comment. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 1, 2017 18:55:38 GMT
There is no obligation to follow the BCE sub-regions. The sub-regions I used were Cumbria (although that isn't a traditional county, of course), Cheshire [plus Widnes] and 'Lancashire without' i.e. Lancs minus Widnes and the Furness. Yes but for the purposes of my comments, I was referring to the Conservative counter-proposal for the Lancs sub-region, which doesn't include Bury or Bolton...
Well, the political parties are unlikely to disagree with the sub-regions in their (region-wide) official responses. That's especially disappointing from the Tories, who seem to have abandoned any pretense of standing for British values and traditions in recent years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 19:26:24 GMT
If "Ribble Valley and Hyndburn West" is accepted, I'd recommend calling it "Ribble Valley and Oswaldtwistle"
|
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Mar 1, 2017 19:44:30 GMT
"Ribble Valley & Hyndburn West" is an awful awful name. But it is just combining the old Ribble Valley seat with Oswaldtwistle and recreating the Accrington & Burnley seat from the 2013 review. Which avoids the mess that is Clitheroe & Colne and that horrible North Lancs seat. Seems a fairly strong alternative to the BCE proposal. The Lancs Tory submission looks fairly solid in my view. It's the mess they've made of Bolton/Bury that is bad! Is it as bad in Hyndburn as last time:  |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 2, 2017 21:21:52 GMT
Well, the political parties are unlikely to disagree with the sub-regions in their (region-wide) official responses. That's especially disappointing from the Tories, who seem to have abandoned any pretense of standing for British values and traditions in recent years. The 2013 review did cross the border and link Darwen with Bolton, which did make sense given the numbers last time. But the numbers don't require it in this review so would just cause needless disruption.
Yeah, Bolton proper and Darwen doesn't work this time, but I end up with two wards from Chorley in the Westhoughton seat. The most sensible Southport constituency at both reviews contains parts of 'Merseyside' and West Lancashire too. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Mar 3, 2017 21:25:13 GMT
"Ribble Valley & Hyndburn West" is an awful awful name. But it is just combining the old Ribble Valley seat with Oswaldtwistle and recreating the Accrington & Burnley seat from the 2013 review. Which avoids the mess that is Clitheroe & Colne and that horrible North Lancs seat. Seems a fairly strong alternative to the BCE proposal. The Lancs Tory submission looks fairly solid in my view. It's the mess they've made of Bolton/Bury that is bad! Is it as bad in Hyndburn as last time: No, it's only a two-way split of Hyndburn. However they've included Clayton-le-Moors and Altham in Burnley and Accrington, with Church and Baxenden (the ward at the south end of Accrington) in Ribble Valley. I can see why they've done it, with Altham containing parts of both Accrington and Clayton, but for me it'd still make more sense the other way round. (Altham's bit of Accrington is at least on the Whalley Road, as opposed to Baxenden on Manchester Road). |
|
harryjoe
Conservative
Keep smiling
Posts: 141
|
Post by harryjoe on Mar 5, 2017 15:46:17 GMT
I was chatting with some Conservative friends yesterday, and they informed me that my 'new' MP will be Ben Wallace (I'm currently in Morecambe and Lunesdale),this is fine by me, but who is it that decides? I'd have thought members of any new seat would have selected their own MP (for life in 'North Lancashire').
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 16:11:52 GMT
I was chatting with some Conservative friends yesterday, and they informed me that my 'new' MP will be Ben Wallace (I'm currently in Morecambe and Lunesdale),this is fine by me, but who is it that decides? I'd have thought members of any new seat would have selected their own MP (for life in 'North Lancashire'). Whether the Commission gets its way, or the Conservative counter proposal, Ben Wallace will either be candidate/MP for North Lancashire, or Lancaster and Wyre/Lancaster, Wyre and Preston North. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 18, 2017 0:59:32 GMT
Also, Middleton & Prestwich are not actually connected, and the Wikipedia description for the old Middleton & Prestwich constituency says as much. How would the residents of Prestwich feel about sharing a constituency with Salford voters? I wonder... I still like my upthread proposal for "Blackley, Broughton and Prestwich". I know this is quoting old news but I'm surprised boundary changes haven't been mentioned during the election hype as it is the last election (should the plans go ahead) under current boundaries. Us Prestwich people have never had decent boundaries or appropriately named ones since 1918 (Prestwich alone was a constituency before then believe it or not), after which Prestwich and Middleton was created, probably back then it wasn't easy for the folks of Westminster to know the local detail and find that the towns have nothing to do with each other whatsoever, have a motorway, and lots of green space in between, and demographically are quite different - the only fact that is true is that they happen to be neighbouring, so they probably thought let's just put them together. The restoring of the seat is simply wrong, just because it was done in the past doesn't mean it is right. 'Bury South' meanwhile isn't a bad boundary but inappropriately named because it doesn't really contain Bury, more just 'south of the Bury Council area'. Prestwich people have more affinity with Manchester and surprise, surprise, the bordering Eastern Salford areas than Bury itself. Best to keep it as it is but rename Prestwich & Radcliffe (the two larger conurbations, sorry Whitefield), but I understand change is inevitable. I quite like the Blackley/Broughton/Prestwich idea but really am in favour of naming constituencies after the best-known place, for national recognition, and keep them short. It's annoying that there are only 3 'Manchester' seats yet loads of Birmingham, Sheffield and Glasgow seats. I think Broughton should go back to Salford, put in Kersal which is pretty much homogenous with Prestwich and rename Manchester North & Prestwich. Blackley is too controversial to pronounce and most amenities in the Crumpsall/Blackley area are all 'North Manchester X', e.g. Hospital, golf course, etc so the name shouldn't be a problem. So I think Prestwich people would not mind sharing with Kersal and at a pinch Broughton given the similar demographic. Likewise - 'Wythenshawe & Sale East' should go back to Manchester Wythenshawe or more succinctly Manchester South (& Sale). I think it's fine to use a mix of place names and compass points, e.g. as in Sheffield, so the two extremities of Manchester can be North/South with the others in between (Central/Gorton/Withington). "Salford & Eccles" and "Worsley and Eccles South" is annoying because there is no "Eccles North". As irritatingly long the Altrincham/Wythenshawe Sale E/W names are at least there is a Sale East and West. But not for Eccles. Would be better off 'Salford Central' and 'Salford West' - this is what the council calls both of those areas. Or Salford Eccles and Salford Worsley. After all Salford is a city in its own right so why not name after regions like they do in Birmingham? Similarly... 'Stretford and Urmston' -> Trafford. Quite surprising that the famous football ground/cricket ground/shopping centre doesn't have a similarly well known constituency name. 'Makerfield' -> Wigan South (and current Wigan of course to Wigan North) - there's no such place as 'Makerfield' alone as it is, I don't think anyone outside it could tell where it is based on the name as unlike Leigh nobody can say they live 'in Makerfield' as it isn't a town itself. The new 'Failsworth and Droylsden' is a disaster too, just looking at the shape. I think there needs to be another Oldham seat somehow - I've seen a few good ideas here. Roughly speaking I would put Failsworth back into Oldham and put Middleton with Royton (better off than with Prestwich) and possibly Shaw for a 'Royton and Middleton' seat (or Oldham North & Middleton). As for Droylsden, well, it was always better off in Ashton. Perhaps consider 'Manchester East' somehow. As for Radcliffe, it certainly shouldn't be split with Farnworth. Either keep it altogether in 'Radcliffe and Farnworth'/Bolton South and Radcliffe, or if it has to be split, between Bury and Prestwich instead. I'm all for keeping names short, but one where I'd like to lengthen it is Bolton West, where poor Atherton (actually part of Wigan council) is forgotten. So make it Bolton West and Atherton, in fact their MP seems to refer to it as such quite often in his campaigns. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 18, 2017 13:35:21 GMT
I still like my upthread proposal for "Blackley, Broughton and Prestwich". I know this is quoting old news but I'm surprised boundary changes haven't been mentioned during the election hype as it is the last election (should the plans go ahead) under current boundaries. Us Prestwich people have never had decent boundaries or appropriately named ones since 1918 (Prestwich alone was a constituency before then believe it or not) Welcome to the board. Clearly you haven't seen the boundaries of the 1885-1918 Prestwich constituency. It had Mossley in it. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 18, 2017 17:11:58 GMT
I know this is quoting old news but I'm surprised boundary changes haven't been mentioned during the election hype as it is the last election (should the plans go ahead) under current boundaries. Us Prestwich people have never had decent boundaries or appropriately named ones since 1918 (Prestwich alone was a constituency before then believe it or not) Welcome to the board. Clearly you haven't seen the boundaries of the 1885-1918 Prestwich constituency. It had Mossley in it. True, but do you agree that Prestwich-Middleton is less than ideal? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 18, 2017 19:44:59 GMT
Welcome to the board. Clearly you haven't seen the boundaries of the 1885-1918 Prestwich constituency. It had Mossley in it. True, but do you agree that Prestwich-Middleton is less than ideal? It wouldn't be my choice, but I could live with it and the BCE do have a coherent reason for the Prestwich-Middleton linkage in that enables them to keep the Manchester and Salford seats almost unchanged. In order to make the case for a Blackley-Broughton-Prestwich linkage you also have to give reasons why the Manchester and Salford seats should be disturbed. In terms of problems with the provisional proposals in the Bury borough, I take the view that the splitting of Radcliffe is a more important problem to sort out and that was what my submission to the BCE was entirely concerned with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 21:06:23 GMT
"Makerfield -> Wigan South"
Nope. No. Just no.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 23, 2017 8:51:07 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 bsjmcr - Regarding the treatment of Prestwich: Did you have in mind something like the above? (Originally posted on p16 above.) Welcome to the forum. |
|
