2018 Review — North West England

[greenhert]

My proposals for Cumbria:

1. Carlisle. The entire district of Carlisle. Electorate: 76,825.
2. Whitehaven & Workington. The entire district of Copeland, and the Allerdale wards of Dalton, Harrington, Seaton, Clifton, Moss Bay, Moorclose, St John's, Stainburn, and St Michael's. Electorate: 77,816.
3. Penrith & Cockermouth. All Allerdale wards not in Whitehaven & Workington (including the towns of Maryport and Cockermouth), and the Eden wards of Ullswater, Greystoke, Skelton, Hesket, Lazonby, Kirkoswald, Alston Moor, Langwathby, Hartside, Long Marton, Kirkby Thore, Eamont, Dacre, and Penrith (all wards). Electorate: 75,150.
4. Westmorland. The Eden wards of Appleby (all wards), Askam, Moreland, Crosby Ravensworth, Shap, Warcop, Brough, Orton with Trebay, Ravenstonedale and Kirkby Stephen, and the South Lakeland wards of Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale, Whinfell, Kendal (all), Crooklands, Burton & Holme, Arrside & Beetham, Milnthorpe, Levens, Lythe Valley, Burnside, Staveley-in-Westmorland, Windermere (all), Staveley-in-Cartmel, Hawkshead, Coniston & Crake Valley, Ambleside & Grasmere, and Broughton. I have tried to include as little as of what is really in Lancashire as possible. Electorate: 72,119.
5. Barrow-in-Furness. As the current Barrow-in-Furness constituency minus Broughton ward, but plus Holker, Cartmel & Grange West, Grange North, and Grange South wards. Electorate: 72,807.

Workington constituency effectively disappears in these proposals.

[greenhert]

My proposals for Cheshire (difficult due to the way the wards of Cheshire West & Chester and Cheshire East are drawn and the need to move one ward in with a Greater Manchester constituency in practice):

1. Chester. The Cheshire West & Chester wards of Dodleston & Huntington, Handbridge Park, Lache, Chester City, Garden Quarter, Blacon, Newton, Hoole, Great Boughton, Boughton, Upton, Chester Villages, and Saughall & Mollington. Electorate: 73,723.
2. Winsford Vale. The Cheshire West & Chester wards of Farndon, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tarporley, Tarvin & Kelshall, Gowy, Winsford (all wards), Kingsley, and Weaver & Cuddington, plus the Halton wards of Norton North, Norton South, Windmill Hill, and Daresbury. A successor to both Eddisbury and Weaver Vale. Electorate: 76,516.
3. Ellesmere Port & Neston. The Cheshire West & Chester wards of Frodsham, Helsby, Parkgate, Neston, Little Neston & Burton, Willaston & Thornton, Netherpool, Elton, Rossmore, Ellesmere Port Town, Whitby, Sutton, Strawberry, Ledsham & Manor, St Paul's, and Grange. Electorate: 77,449.
4. Widnes & Runcorn. As the current Halton constituency plus the wards of Halton Lea and Beechwood. Electorate: 78,327.
5. Warrington North. As the current Warrington North plus the ward of Bewsey & Whitecross. Electorate: 78,159.
6. Warrington South. As the current Warrington South minus the ward of Bewsey & Whitecross. Electorate: 74,830.
7. Knutsford & Northwich. The Cheshire West & Chester wards of Hartford & Greenbank, Davenham & Moulton, Shakerley, Winnington & Castle, Witton & Rundheath, Marbury, High Legh, Knutsford, Mobberley, and all wards of Wilmslow. Electorate: 76,969.
8. Crewe & Nantwich. The Cheshire East wards of Wrenbury, Audlem, Wybunbury, Bunbury, both Nantwich wards, Wistaston, Willaston & Rope, Shavington, Leighton, and Crewe (all wards). Electorate: 76,965.
9. Congleton. The Cheshire East wards of Middlewich, Dane Valley, Brereton Rural, Haslington, Alsager, Sandbach (all), Odd Rode, Congleton West, and Congleton East. Electorate: 77,527.
10. Macclesfield. The Cheshire East wards of Alderley Edge, Chelford, Gawsworth, Sutton, Poynton East & Port Shrigley, Poynton West & Adlington, Bollington, Broken Cross & Upton, and all Macclesfield wards. Electorate: 72,691.

Stockport sub-section:

11. Hazel Grove. As the current Hazel Grove constituency plus Disley ward from Cheshire East and Stepping Hill ward in Stockport. Electorate: 73,844.
12. Cheadle. As the current Cheadle constituency minus Stepping Hill ward but plus Handforth ward in Cheshire East and Davenport and Cale Green ward (part). Electorate: 74,800 (estimate).
13. Stockport & Reddish. As the current Stockport constituency minus part of Davenport & Cale Green ward and plus both Reddish wards. Electorate: 73,600 (estimate).

[gwynthegriff]

Mar 31, 2016 21:23:58 GMT greenhert said:

My proposals for Cheshire (difficult due to the way the wards of Cheshire West & Chester and Cheshire East are drawn and the need to move one ward in with a Greater Manchester constituency in practice):

2. Winsford Vale. The Cheshire West & Chester wards of Farndon, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tarporley, Tarvin & Kelshall, Gowy, Winsford (all wards), Kingsley, and Weaver & Cuddington, plus the Halton wards of Norton North, Norton South, Windmill Hill, and Daresbury. A successor to both Eddisbury and Weaver Vale. Electorate: 76,516.

You cannot put Malpas, Tarporley, Tattenhall or Kelsall in anything containing the word Winsford.

Pitchforks. Riots. Upset people in 4wDrives.

[greenhert]

I suppose I could just allow it to retain its old name of Eddisbury, since Weaver Vale has been broken up completely in these proposals of mine and most of the current Eddisbury constituency is in my draft of Winsford Vale.

[Adrian]

Ah, because I'd attacked the problem in my old-school way, I've come up with a 67-seat solution. I think I might still submit it, depending on how fair/unfair it appears to be in the national context. I think some MPs might prefer it, certainly, and if there's a big enough group of them they might get the Commission to seriously consider the possibility.

[greatkingrat]

Are you proposing a different region gets an extra seat to compensate?

[Adrian]

Not on purpose, but possibly by accident.

Anyway, I've done a 68-seat version now, with the Altrincham & Wilmslow variant.

As is my wont, I'll be advocating various ward splits (though as few as possible) - it disappoints me to see so many people on here playing the Commission's "numbers game" and producing proposals for entire regions without any sensible splits. It always seems ludicrous to me that one minute someone's discussing the minutiae of why village A can't be put with village B, and the next minute they're blithely crossing a county boundary just to get the numbers right.

Speaking of split wards, does anyone have the PD data for the Wirral, even if it's very out of date? It might just be possible to do the Wirral on its own, though the knock-on effects on the rest of Cheshire aren't too bad either way.

[andrewteale]

Apr 3, 2016 2:23:12 GMT Adrian said:

Not on purpose, but possibly by accident.

Anyway, I've done a 68-seat version now, with the Altrincham & Wilmslow variant.

As is my wont, I'll be advocating various ward splits (though as few as possible) - it disappoints me to see so many people on here playing the Commission's "numbers game" and producing proposals for entire regions without any sensible splits. It always seems ludicrous to me that one minute someone's discussing the minutiae of why village A can't be put with village B, and the next minute they're blithely crossing a county boundary just to get the numbers right.

Speaking of split wards, does anyone have the PD data for the Wirral, even if it's very out of date? It might just be possible to do the Wirral on its own, though the knock-on effects on the rest of Cheshire aren't too bad either way.

We're playing the numbers game because that's the game the Boundary Commissioners are going to play. It was abundantly clear last time that the English Commission did not want to split wards at any cost, and there's little to indicate their thinking has changed since then. Proposals with no split wards therefore have a chance of finding favour, whereas proposals with one or more split wards are a waste of time for everyone involved.

It's also worth pointing out that all five of the North West's counties are 1974 creations - it's not like there's centuries of history to despoil. I've proposed in this thread five cross-county constituencies (Ellesmere Port and Heswall, Tatton, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove and West Lancashire) and I'm fairly sure that in all five of those cases there has previously been a constituency which crosses what is now the county boundary in that place.

[YL]

Apr 3, 2016 9:09:14 GMT andrewteale said:

]We're playing the numbers game because that's the game the Boundary Commissioners are going to play. It was abundantly clear last time that the English Commission did not want to split wards at any cost, and there's little to indicate their thinking has changed since then. Proposals with no split wards therefore have a chance of finding favour, whereas proposals with one or more split wards are a waste of time for everyone involved.

The notes of their meeting with the political parties do actually suggest that they are not going to go to the lengths they did last time to avoid split wards. Paragraph 15:

The BCE was very conscious of the criticism generated from the last review,
when it had a very restrictive approach to splitting of wards. It therefore proposed to
be more open to the possibility of ward splitting at this review, although wards would
remain the default building block of constituencies, and whole wards would be used
as very much the ideal.

Now, what that actually means in practice, especially for the NW, I don't know.

[islington]

I've been looking again at the North West, especially the Gtr Manchester area. Andrew Teale posted a very good and comprehensive plan back on 7 March, although he acknowledged that it involved a couple of ward splits and a constituency straddling three Gtr Manchester boroughs (although he mounted a spirited defence of the latter feature). He updated his plan a few days later to get rid of the ward splits. But this was at the expense of (a) linking Wigan with Lancashire; and (b) three seats crossing the boundary between Gtr Manchester and Cheshire E.

But Lancashire forms a natural unit with an entitlement of 14.06 = 14 seats and doesn't need to be linked with anywhere. On the other hand, Andrew's linking of Cheshire E (3.62) with Gtr Manchester (25.37, including Wigan) is eminently logical, with a combined entitlement of 29.00. And in practice, we can slim this down slightly by hiving off the boroughs of Rochdale and Oldham, each of which can be treated on its own and given two whole seats:

HEYWOOD & MIDDLETON - Unchanged. 75880
ROCHDALE - Unchanged. 72530
OLDHAM EAST - Gains Medlock Vale. 77067
OLDHAM WEST - Remainder of the borough. 76684.

That leaves us with the rest of Gtr Manchester plus Cheshire E = 1865973 = 24.96 = 25 seats.

So the question is whether this can be done in a way that
- has all seats within quota
- avoids ward splits
- avoids any seats covering three Gtr Manchester boroughs
- has fewer than three seats crossing the boundary between Gtr Manchester and Cheshire E
- avoids monstrosities and absurdities.

I am pleased to report that the answer is yes.

So ... (drumroll please) here is the plan.

WIGAN - Unchanged. 72733
MAKERFIELD - Unchanged. 71857
LEIGH - Gains Atherton and loses Astley Mosley Common. 74381
BOLTON WEST - Loses Atherton (and is thus entirely within Bolton); gains Hulton and Rumworth. 77948
BOLTON EAST - Compared with Bolton NE, gains Gt Lever. 72603
BURY - Compared with Bury N, gains Radcliffe N. 72771
RADCLIFFE AND FARNWORTH - Compared with Bolton SE (to which it is best regarded as the successor seat, although much altered): loses Gt Lever, Hulton and Rumworth; gains Radcliffe E, Radcliffe W, Pilkington Park, Besses, Unsworth. My initial thought was to put Radcliffe N in this seat and Unsworth in Bury. The numbers work; but looking in more detail, Radcliffe N is well away from the central area of Radcliffe whereas Unsworth penetrates almost to the centre of the town of Whitefield, so I feel it is less disruptive to put Radcliffe N in Bury. This seat and the following one mean between them that Bury S effectively vanishes. 76369
MANCHESTER BLACKLEY AND PRESTWICH - Compared with Blackley and Broughton: within Manchester, it loses Cheetham and gains Moston; outside Manchester, it loses the two Salford wards and gains the three remaining wards of Bury (i.e. the town of Prestwich). I feel that a seat with such a strong Manchester component should reflect this in its name. 77107
MANCHESTER CENTRAL - Gains Cheetham, loses Moston and Moss Side. 77434
MANCHESTER GORTON - Loses Whalley Range and Fallowfield; gains Withington and Burnage. This gives it a strong presence on the east side of the city proper and is surely an improvement on the current 'layer cake' arrangement in this part of Manchester. 73688
MANCHESTER MOSS SIDE - This could conceivably be regarded as the successor to the Withington seat but it is so much altered that it is probably easier to list the wards: Chorlton, Chorlton Park, Fallowfield, Moss Side, Old Moat, Whalley Range and the Trafford ward of Clifford. I regret the inclusion of a Trafford ward but if it must be done, Clifford is definitely the one to take; it is at the extreme northeastern tip of the borough and this is definitely an improvement on reinforcing a Manchester seat with half of Sale as under the present arrangements. The loss of Withington ward requires a name change but 'Moss Side' has history as a constituency name. 73952
MANCHESTER WYTHENSHAWE - The remaining seven wards of Manchester: in other words, everything south of the Mersey plus the two Didsbury wards. 74315
SALFORD - Gains Broughton and Kersal; loses the two Swinton wards. 73935
SWINTON AND WORSLEY - Gains the two Swinton wards plus AMC from Wigan borough; loses Barton, Irlam and Cadishead. I feel Swinton is too large a component of this seat not to be reflected in the name. 74495
STRETFORD AND IRLAM - This is Stretford & Urmston less Clifford and Bucklow St Martins but plus the three Salford wards of Barton, Irlam and Cadishead. Basically, the price you pay for losing the three-borough seat is a seat that crosses the Ship Canal but (as David Cameron would say) it is not the Amazon, and I'd point out there are two road bridges and a rail crossing within the seat. 77141
ALTRINCHAM AND SALE - Compared with Altrincham & Sale W, gains the other two Sale wards and Bucklow St Martins; loses Bowdon and the two Hale wards. 77226
ASHTON UNDER LYNE - Loses the two Failsworth wards (and is thus now wholly in Tameside); gains Audenshaw, Dukinfield and Mossley. 77564
STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE - Loses Mossley and gains Bredbury to come in just above the minimum. It's necessary to take a Stockport ward to avoid dividing the town of Denton. 71050
STOCKPORT AND DENTON - In effect the successor to Denton & Reddish, compared with which it loses Audenshaw and Dukinfield and gains Heatons N, Heatons S and Brinnington & Central. This means it now contains Stockport town centre, hence the name change, but effectively Stockport is the seat to disappear. 76088
HAZEL GROVE - Loses Bredbury; gains Manor and the infamous (and unsplit) Stepping Hill, plus Disley from Cheshire E. 73465
CHEADLE - Loses Stepping Hill and Heald Green; gains Edgeley and Davenport. 71478
KNUTSFORD AND WILMSLOW - Compared with Tatton, it loses all the parts in CW&C and gains three wards of Trafford (Bowdon and the Hale Wards) and one in Stockport (Heald Green). I agree it's not pretty to take wards from two different Gtr Manchester boroughs, but I can't find a better arrangement and it means that this seat and Hazel Grove are the only two to cross the boundary between Cheshire E and Gtr Manchester. Since 'Tatton' is an obscure name and there is no longer an eponymous local authority underpinning it, I've gone for a name that helps tell people where it is. 77784.
MACCLESFIELD - Loses Disley, gains Dane Valley. The latter is basically the Holmes Chapel area and it is an awkward spur on the Macclesfield seat, but it's needed for the numbers. 73513
CONGLETON - Loses Dane Valley, gains Haslington and Wyburnbury. The latter seems to me a better fit than Bunbury, as some others have proposed (although we need a minor tweak to fit new ward boundaries north of Crewe). 74186
CREWE AND NANTWICH - The rest of Cheshire E. 72890

In conclusion, I'd like to acknowledge my debt to Andrew Teale's plan.
 

[andrewteale]

Apr 3, 2016 11:29:20 GMT islington said:

RADCLIFFE AND FARNWORTH - Compared with Bolton SE (to which it is best regarded as the successor seat, although much altered): loses Gt Lever, Hulton and Rumworth; gains Radcliffe E, Radcliffe W, Pilkington Park, Besses, Unsworth. My initial thought was to put Radcliffe N in this seat and Unsworth in Bury. The numbers work; but looking in more detail, Radcliffe N is well away from the central area of Radcliffe whereas Unsworth penetrates almost to the centre of the town of Whitefield, so I feel it is less disruptive to put Radcliffe N in Bury. This seat and the following one mean between them that Bury S effectively vanishes. 76369

I'd go with your first instinct here. Radcliffe North ward has two distinct parts: while Ainsworth has very good links to Bury (arguably better than to Radcliffe) and has BL postcodes, it's a secondary part of the ward to Bradley Fold and the Turks Road/Coronation Road estate, which is an integral part of Radcliffe and has M postcodes. Also, the shape of the ward means that its only link with Bury is via the Rose and Crown junction in Lowercroft, which is a strange way to get from Turks Road to Bury.

Whitefield, on the other hand, is smaller than you probably think it is: Unsworth and Sunnybank have been integral parts of Bury since the 1930s, were part of Bury North until 2010 and have BL postcodes whereas Whitefield has M postcodes. In the end Unsworth ward is a better fit with Bury, while Radcliffe North is a better fit with Radcliffe and Farnworth.

Apart from that, I'm pleased that you agree with me on Bury and Bolton.

STRETFORD AND IRLAM - This is Stretford & Urmston less Clifford and Bucklow St Martins but plus the three Salford wards of Barton, Irlam and Cadishead. Basically, the price you pay for losing the three-borough seat is a seat that crosses the Ship Canal but (as David Cameron would say) it is not the Amazon, and I'd point out there are two road bridges and a rail crossing within the seat. 77141

That's going to be the difficult bit to sell. It also doesn't sort out the present weird split of Eccles (although to be fair my plan doesn't do that either).

I hadn't spotted that that configuration of Stalybridge and Hyde works.

[islington]

Andrew

Regarding Unsworth v Radcliffe N: I think I was influenced by memories of the shape of the old Whitefield UD (or it may have been MB). Judging by your avatar this is much more your part of the world than mine, and I wouldn't go to the stake either way; but doesn't Unsworth make Bury look extremely straggly at its southern end? If you make the switch the numbers are Bury 71594 and Radcliffe & Farnsworth 77546.

I agree the Eccles split is horrible, but how to avoid it? You could (compared with my plan above) swap Barton into Salford and Pendlebury into Swinton & Worsley. Those two seats would both be fine, but to balance the numbers Winton would have to go into Stretford & Irlam and that's just too grotesque for words. So I think the Eccles boundary is just an unfortunate feature of the landscape; and it exists already so all we're doing is perpetuating an existing ugly boundary, which somehow seems a lesser offence than creating a new one.

I agree that my original proposal for Stretford and Irlam won't be popular, but I suspect a three-borough seat won't be either - and so far as I can see, you have to accept one or the other.

And the Irlam area is tricky in any event. It's currently in the Worsley seat but frankly, its communications with Worsley aren't much better than with the areas on the other side of the Ship Canal.

[lancastrian]

Mar 14, 2016 19:48:37 GMT andrewteale said:

Mar 14, 2016 14:34:58 GMT islington said:

Regarding Lancashire:

At the risk of being told that I'm an southern interloper interfering in matters he knows nothing about (which would be perfectly true), and with apologies if someone has suggested this before, how about this? (working roughly from south to north)

ORMSKIRK (71897): W Lancs district except the three northern wards.

CHORLEY (73323): Chorley district except the two western wards.

LEYLAND (76655): The three W Lancs wards and two Chorley wards plus the western half of South Ribble (the bits not in Preston, see below).

DARWEN AND ROSSENDALE (74991): The seven wards of Blackburn & Darwen south of the M65 plus the whole of Rossendale.

BLACKBURN (72816): The rest of Blackburn & Darwen.

ACCRINGTON (77227): The whole of Hyndburn plus, from Burnley, the two Padiham wards (neither of which has 'Padiham' in the name) and Rosegrove and Gannow. I know the last two wards are part of the town of Burnley and it's undesirable to nibble at the edges in this way, but it's better than driving a boundary right through the middle.

BURNLEY AND NELSON (77881): The rest of Burnley (including most of the town) and Pendle as far as the wards of Higham, Barrowford, Bradley, Marsden. I need to separate the towns of Nelson and Colne and I've tried to do this in a logical place.

COLNE AND CLITHEROE (76530): The rest of Pendle and the whole of Ribble Valley. I know Colne isn't an especially good fit with the Ribble Valley but you have to have an awkward seat somewhere and surely this is the least bad way of doing it.

PRESTON (74916): The present seat less Ingold and Lea and plus the eastern part of South Ribble (Lostock Hall ward and everything north or east of it).

FYLDE (72476): The whole of Fylde district and the Preesall, Pilling, Gt Eccleston and Hambleton wards of Wyre.

BLACKPOOL SOUTH (77889): Blackpool except the four northern wards.

BLACKPOOL NORTH AND FLEETWOOD (76834): The four northern wards of Blackpool and Wyre west of the Wyre.

LANCASTER AND MORECAMBE (76426): The Lancaster wards (including University) and everything between the Lune and the coast as far north as Bolton-le-Sands.

NORTH LANCASHIRE (71448): Everything else. I know this is a huge seat stretching from the border with Cumbria as far south as Fulwood but isn't this better than extending it eastwards into the Ribble Valley?

OK, that's it (dons body armour).

That's approximately what I'm going to propose, with a few minor differences. It seems the best plan to me.

I also agree with most of this. Small issues I would point out: If Burnley must have two wards split off, Gannow and Whittlefield with Ightenhill should stay together as the latter only has half a road link to anywhere other than Gannow. 
The above plan also splits Barrowford parish between two constituencies. 
To resolve that sensibly however, requires shifting Longridge into North Lancashire, which makes sense as it's nearer Fulwood than Clitheroe, but is an unnecessary LA boundary crossing and no-one anywhere will want to be in North Lancashire.

There's probably also a desire to keep Ingol (a very substantial part of which is council housing) in Preston, which would require shifting a couple of wards around South Ribble and forces Longridge into North Lancashire.

[Deleted]

I would certainly recommend keeping Ingol in Preston. It's not part of Fulwood, so often and easily added to neighboring seats.

[islington]

Lancastrian makes a very fair point about Burnley.

Swap Whittingfield and Rosegrove wards, and also whilst in this area it might be better to put Higham & Pendleside ward in the Clitheroe/Colne seat. With these changes you get

Accrington and Padiham 77446
Burnley and Nelson 76248
Clitheroe and Colne 77944.

[greenhert]

My proposals for Lancashire constituencies:

1. Chorley. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 73,323.
2. Ormskirk. As the current West Lancashire constituency plus the ward of Rufford. Electorate: 71,689.
3. Leyland. As the current South Ribble constituency minus Rufford ward but plus both Farington wards. Electorate: 76,855.
4. Rossendale & Darwen. As the current Rossendale & Darwen constituency minus Fernhurst ward but plus Worsley & Greenfield wards; it now contains all of the Rossendale district. Electorate: 74,991.
5. Blackburn. As the current Blackburn constituency plus Fernhurst ward. Electorate: 72,816.
6. Accrington. The entire district of Hyndburn plus the Burnley wards of Hapton with Park, Gawthorpe, Rosegrove with Lowerhouse, and Gannow. Electorate: 77,227.
7. Lancaster & Morecambe. The Lancaster wards of Scotforth East/West, Marsh, Poulton, Harbour, Westgate, Heysham (all), Overton, Torrisholme, Skerton East/West, Bulk, Castle, John O'Groats, University & Scotforth Rural, Bare, and Bolton & Skyne. Electorate: 76,426.
8. Blackpool. As the current Blackpool South plus the wards of Warbreck, Greenlands, Claremont, Park, and Layton. Electorate: 77,889.
9. Fleetwood & Poulton. The Blackpool wards of Bispham, Ingthorpe, Norbreck, and Anchorsholme, and the Wyre wards of Jubilee, Cleveleys Park, Victoria & Norcross, Rossall, Warren, Park, Mount, Pharos, Pheasant's Wood, Marsh Mill, Bourne, Stanah, Carleton, Breck, Tithebarn, and Hardborn with High Cross. Electorate: 76,834.
10. Preston. As the current Preston constituency plus the wards of Sharoe Green, Greyfriars, College, Cadley, and Garrison. Electorate: 77, 324.
11. Fylde. As the current Fylde constituency plus both Preston Rural wards. Electorate: 72,823.
12. Burnley & Nelson. All Burnley wards except for Gannow, Rosegrove with Lowerhouse, Gawthorpe and Hapton with Park, plus the Pendle wards of Old Laund Booth, Reedley, Brierfield, Clover Hill, Southfield, Marsden, Walverden, Whitefield, Barrowford, and Bradley. Electorate: 76,467.
13. Clitheroe & Colne. The Pendle wards of Higham & Pendleside, Blacko & Higherford, Foulridge, Vivary Bridge, Waterside, Horsfield, and Boulsworth, plus the Ribble Valley wards of Sabden, Read & Simonstone, Chatburn, Wiswell & Pendleton, St Mary's, Salthill, Littlemore, Primrose, Edisford & Low Moor, Whalley, Billington & Old Langho, Langho, Wilpshire, Clayton-le-Dale with Ramsgreave, and Mellor, plus the South Ribble wards of Samlesbury & Walton, Coupe Green & Gregson Lane, Bamber Bridge East/West, Walton-le-Dale East/West, and Lostock Hall. Electorate: 74,699.
14. North Lancashire. All Lancaster wards not in Lancaster & Morecambe, all Wyre wards not included in Fleetwood & Poulton, all Ribble Valley wards not in Clitheroe & Colne, and the Pendle wards of Craven, Coates, and Earby. Electorate: 71,938.

The Pendle, Lancaster & Fleetwood, and Wyre & Preston North constituencies disappear under these proposals. North Lancashire is an entirely new constituency formed from different parts of four current constituencies.

[Deleted]

That "North Lancashire" has a whiff of the ex-Euro constituency of Central Lancashire....

[Adrian]

Apr 3, 2016 8:31:36 GMT @jamesdowden said:

Apr 2, 2016 21:23:01 GMT Adrian said:

Ah, because I'd attacked the problem in my old-school way, I've come up with a 67-seat solution. I think I might still submit it, depending on how fair/unfair it appears to be in the national context. I think some MPs might prefer it, certainly, and if there's a big enough group of them they might get the Commission to seriously consider the possibility.

So what's the detail of your 67-seat solution?

67 seats: Cumbria 5, Lancs 14, Stockport+Tameside 5, Oldham 2, Rochdale 2, Wigan 3, Bolton+Bury+Manchester+Trafford+Salford  13, Liverpool 4, Sefton+Knowsley 4, St Helens+Halton 3, Cheshire 7, Warrington 2, Wirral 3

68 seats:  Cumbria 5, Lancs 14, Stockport+Tameside 5, Oldham 2, Rochdale 2, Bolton+Salford+Wigan 8, Bury+Manchester+Trafford+Cheshire+Halton 17, Liverpool 4, Sefton+Knowsley+St Helens 6, Warrington 2, Wirral 3

[Adrian]

Apr 3, 2016 9:09:14 GMT andrewteale said:

Apr 3, 2016 2:23:12 GMT Adrian said:

Not on purpose, but possibly by accident.

Anyway, I've done a 68-seat version now, with the Altrincham & Wilmslow variant.

As is my wont, I'll be advocating various ward splits (though as few as possible) - it disappoints me to see so many people on here playing the Commission's "numbers game" and producing proposals for entire regions without any sensible splits. It always seems ludicrous to me that one minute someone's discussing the minutiae of why village A can't be put with village B, and the next minute they're blithely crossing a county boundary just to get the numbers right.

Speaking of split wards, does anyone have the PD data for the Wirral, even if it's very out of date? It might just be possible to do the Wirral on its own, though the knock-on effects on the rest of Cheshire aren't too bad either way.

We're playing the numbers game because that's the game the Boundary Commissioners are going to play. It was abundantly clear last time that the English Commission did not want to split wards at any cost, and there's little to indicate their thinking has changed since then. Proposals with no split wards therefore have a chance of finding favour, whereas proposals with one or more split wards are a waste of time for everyone involved.

It's also worth pointing out that all five of the North West's counties are 1974 creations - it's not like there's centuries of history to despoil. I've proposed in this thread five cross-county constituencies (Ellesmere Port and Heswall, Tatton, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove and West Lancashire) and I'm fairly sure that in all five of those cases there has previously been a constituency which crosses what is now the county boundary in that place.

There have been at least two indications that the Commission have relented somewhat on the split wards issue, the biggest of which being that they are going to publish the 2015 polling district electorates for the whole of England. I think the strongest lobbying on this has actually come from Tory MPs, many of whom were quietly pleased that the 2013 review was scuppered because they couldn't stomach a lot of what the Commission had done. For years and years the Commission told me that the redistribution was adamantly NOT a numbers game, and I still feel their volte-face was their way of rebelling against the new rules. Remember that many of the BCE staff aren't boundaries nerds and if they hadn't taken a stand on the wards issue their job would've become almost untenable. As it is, I think some sanity has returned and they recognise that they'll be much less hated and ridiculed if some sensible splitting is allowed. They've even asked for suggestions about how the amount of splitting might be restricted to acceptable levels, so if you have any suggestions you could email them.

The fact that the counties are 1974 creations is neither here nor there - they are (except in a few places) de facto and de jure the applicable boundaries of the nation. I'm not against pairing counties (or unitaries/MBs/LBs) but administratively it's much better to keep this to a minimum, and where it needs to be done, to do it in a way that reduces the knock-on effects. For example, pairing East Cheshire with Stockport or Trafford has ripple effects across a vast area, which I think makes the decision unfair, whereas pairing Halton with Merseyside has a much smaller impact.

[minionofmidas]

Apr 3, 2016 18:28:55 GMT Adrian said:

There have been at least two indications that the Commission have relented somewhat on the split wards issue, the biggest of which being that they are going to publish the 2015 polling district electorates for the whole of England.

!!!

Where does it say that, though. (Not that it's going to be too much help to a stranger without the accompanying maps.)