2018 Review — North West England

[Adrian]

Apr 5, 2016 20:53:14 GMT minionofmidas said:

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.)

boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-02-25-Political-parties-meeting-note-final.pdf

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.
16.
If wards were to be split, BCE proposed to use polling districts as a recognised sub-ward unit of electoral administration. It did not propose to consider splitting a polling district. Polling district electorate data would be made available on BCE’s website, but only alongside the published initial proposals.
17.
The parties supported the approach of keeping ward-splitting to a minimum, and encouraged the development by BCE of some specific published criteria for the circumstances in which it would be prepared to consider splitting a ward, in order to avoid a potential deluge of split-ward counterproposals.

[islington]

Mar 7, 2016 17:46:37 GMT andrewteale said:

Here is my proposal for Cheshire and Greater Manchester.

PLUS POINTS
- Correct entitlement of 39 seats
- All seats within tolerance
- Only one seat crossing the Greater Manchester-Cheshire boundary
- Five seats are completely unchanged and a sixth seat is only minimally changed
- Unites Sale within one constituency

MINUS POINTS
- Two wards are split between constituencies
- Runcorn is split between three constituencies
- Blackley, Broughton and Prestwich contains wards from three Greater Manchester boroughs (but see defence below)

SEATS ABOLISHED
- Birkenhead
- Bury South
- Denton and Reddish



1. ALTRINCHAM AND SALE (77226). Unites all of Sale within one constituency. Compared to the current Altrincham and Sale West, loses Bowdon and the Hale wards to Tatton, gains Bucklow-St Martins from Stretford and Urmston and the rest of Sale from Wythenshawe and Sale East.
2. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE (75106). Gains Audenshaw from Denton and Reddish.
3. BLACKLEY, BROUGHTON AND PRESTWICH (74570). Compared to the current Blackley and Broughton, loses Charlestown and Harpurhey to Manchester Central, gains the three Prestwich wards from Bury South. Despite being tri-borough this is a very coherent seat: the area where Bury, Manchester and Salford meet is built up, the boundary is difficult to notice on the ground and there are strong cross-community links at the point where the three boroughs meet.
4. BOLTON EAST (72603). The current Bolton North East plus Great Lever ward from Bolton South East, which makes a rename appropriate.
5. BOLTON WEST (77948). Loses Atherton to Leigh, gains Rumworth and Hulton from Bolton South East.
6. BURY (71594). The current Bury North plus Unsworth ward from Bury South.
7. CHEADLE (76000 approx.). Gains Davenport and Cale Green ward from Stockport, loses the part of Stepping Hill south of the railway line to Hazel Grove.
8. CITY OF CHESTER (73723). Unchanged apart from realignments to the new ward boundaries.
9. CONGLETON (73641). Loses Dane Valley ward to Macclesfield, gains some rural territory from Eddisbury, and Crewe and Nantwich.
10. CREWE AND NANTWICH (73435). Loses some rural territory to Congleton, gains some rural territory from Eddsbury.
11. EDDISBURY (73851). Much redrawn from the current seat and no longer includes any part of Cheshire East. Gains Elton from Ellesmere Port and Neston, Beechwood, Frodham, Helsby and Kingsley from Weaver Vale and Heath from Halton.
12. ELLESMERE PORT AND HESWALL (73382). Gains Heswall from Wirral South, loses Elton to Eddisbury.
13. HALTON (73092). Or how to avoid ward-splitting in Cheshire. Gains Penketh and Cuerdley from Warrington South, loses Heath to Eddisbury.
14. HAZEL GROVE (76000 approx.). Gains Manor from Stockport and the southern part of Stepping Hill ward from Cheadle.
15. HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON (75880). Unchanged.
16. LEIGH (78000 approx.). Gains Atherton from Bolton West, loses the Golborne part of Golborne and Lowton West to Makerfield.
17. MACCLESFIELD (73677). Gains Dane Valley from Congleton, loses Prestbury to Tatton.
18. MAKERFIELD (78000 approx.). Gains the Golborne part of Golborne and Lowton West from Leigh.
19. MANCHESTER CENTRAL (76181). Like all the Manchester seats, much redrawn. Gains Charlestown and Harpurhey from Blackley and Broughton, loses Ardwick, Hulme and Moss Side to Manchester Gorton.
20. MANCHESTER GORTON (74507). Gains Ardwick, Hulme and Moss Side from Manchester Central, loses Fallowfield, Levenshulme and Whalley Range to Manchester Withington.
21. MANCHESTER WITHINGTON (75270). Gains Fallowfield, Levenshulme and Whalley Range from Manchester Gorton, loses Chorlton to Stretford and Urmston and the Didsbury wards to Manchester Wythenshawe.
22. MANCHESTER WYTHENSHAWE (74315). Compared to Wythenshawe and Sale East, gains the Didsbury wards from Manchester Withington and loses the Sale East wards to Altrincham and Sale.
23. OLDHAM EAST AND SADDLEWORTH (71495). Gains Mossley from Stalybridge and Hyde, loses Alexandra to Oldham West and Royton.
24. OLDHAM WEST AND ROYTON (75668). Gains Alexandra from Oldham East and Saddleworth.
25. RADCLIFFE AND FARNWORTH (77546). A new seat combining the Radcliffe and Whitefield wards from Bury South with the Farnworth, Kearsley and Little Lever wards from Bolton South East.
26. ROCHDALE (72530). Unchanged.
27. SALFORD AND ECCLES (74161). Unchanged.
28. STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE (78063). Loses Mossley to Oldham East and Saddleworth, gains Dukinfield and Denton North East from Denton and Reddish.
29. STOCKPORT AND DENTON (77768). Loses Davenport and Cale Green to Cheadle and Manor to Hazel Grove, gains the Reddish wards, Denton South and Denton West from Denton and Reddish.
30. STRETFORD AND URMSTON (71721). Gains Chorlton from Manchester Withington, loses Bucklow-St Martins to Altrincham and Sale. Now entirely north of the Mersey.
31. TATTON (71441). The cross-border seat. No longer includes any part of Cheshire West and Chester. Gains Bowdon and the Hale wards from Altrincham and Sale West and Prestbury from Macclesfield.
32. WALLASEY AND BIRKENHEAD (72931). Compared to the current Wallasey, gains Bidston, Birkenhead and Claughton from Birkenhead, loses the two Moreton wards to Wirral West.
33. WARRINGTON NORTH (72811). Exchanges territory with Warrington South: gains Whittle Hall, loses Rixton and Woolston.
34. WARRINGTON SOUTH (73320). Exchanges those wards with Warrington North and loses Penketh and Cuerdley to Halton.
35. WEAVER VALE (72921). Gains the Tatton wards in Cheshire West and Chester, loses Frodsham and Helsby to Eddisbury. A name change to Northwich might be appropriate.
36. WIGAN (72733). Unchanged.
37. WIRRAL SOUTH (76128). Gains Oxton, Prenton and Rock Ferry from Birkenhead, loses Heswall to Ellesmere Port and Heswall.
38. WIRRAL WEST (75275). Gains the Moreton wards from Wallasey.
39. WORSLEY AND ECCLES SOUTH (72316). Unchanged.

Looking again at Andrew's plan posted a few weeks ago, and specifically at his three 'minus points':

Andrew later revised his plan to get rid of the ward splits, and I've suggested a version that also gets rid of the ward splits as well as avoiding the three-borough seat and treating Wigan with Gtr Manchester rather than with Lancs (although there was a price to be paid in the less-than-lovely form of the 'Stretford and Irlam' seat).

It strikes me, too, that there's a way of splitting Runcorn only two ways rather than three - although, again, there's a price to pay elsewhere. 

WIDNES AND RUNCORN: Compared with Andrew's 'Halton' above, add Heath and remove Halton Castle and Halton Lea. (This also has the merit - at least, I think it is - of removing the Halton area, thus creating an opportunity to give the seat  a more meaningful name.) 73158

MID CHESHIRE: Compared with Andrew's 'Weaver Vale', gains 3 wards in the Borough of Halton (Beechwood, Halton Castle and Halton Lea) and one in CW&C (Kingsley); loses Davenham & Moulton (and this is the price you pay, since this removes the sorthern outskirts of Northwich; although the central part of the town stays in the seat). My suggested name is a personal preference; 'Northwich' or 'Weaver Vale' are other possibilities. 73317

WEST CHESHIRE: Compared with Andrew's 'Eddisbury', loses Kingsley as well as its wards in Halton borough; gains Davenham & Moulton. 'West Cheshire' strikes me as much the best name for this seat; a name like 'Eddisbury' conveys nothing except to the antiquarian, especially now that the underpinning LA name is no more. 73389 

[andrewteale]

I did wonder whether there was a nice way to improve the Runcorn area and I do like the way you've managed to extricate Oldham from the mess. I like the triborough seat and think it will work well in practice (it has very strong northern and western boundaries), I'm just concerned that the Boundary Commission won't consider it because it's triborough.

On the names of Eddisbury and Tatton: there has never been any LA underpinning those names. In terms of the pre-2009 district boundaries, Tatton was based on the western half of the Macclesfield district plus the eastern fringe of Vale Royal, while Eddisbury was the southern fringe of Vale Royal plus the rural parts of Chester, and Crewe and Nantwich. The names only go back as far as 1983 when the seats were created. However, if you're moving Kingsley ward I think you do have to rename Eddisbury.

[minionofmidas]

Apr 5, 2016 22:44:41 GMT Adrian said:

Apr 5, 2016 20:53:14 GMT minionofmidas said:

!!!

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

boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-02-25-Political-parties-meeting-note-final.pdf

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.
16.
If wards were to be split, BCE proposed to use polling districts as a recognised sub-ward unit of electoral administration. It did not propose to consider splitting a polling district. Polling district electorate data would be made available on BCE’s website, but only alongside the published initial proposals.
17.
The parties supported the approach of keeping ward-splitting to a minimum, and encouraged the development by BCE of some specific published criteria for the circumstances in which it would be prepared to consider splitting a ward, in order to avoid a potential deluge of split-ward counterproposals.

Thanks, I hadn't read that one. (Point 18 is important too, and very disappointing.)

[gwynthegriff]

Mar 31, 2016 21:55:52 GMT greenhert said:

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.

During the voodoo review I was Clerk to a Parish Council within Eddisbury.

Their only comment on the draft proposal was their utter opposition to a constituency containing Winsford in its name.

The house prices! The house prices!

[greatkingrat]

Apr 6, 2016 16:16:02 GMT andrewteale said:

I did wonder whether there was a nice way to improve the Runcorn area and I do like the way you've managed to extricate Oldham from the mess. I like the triborough seat and think it will work well in practice (it has very strong northern and western boundaries), I'm just concerned that the Boundary Commission won't consider it because it's triborough.

I don't think that is an insurmountable issue. Last time their proposed Walsall South contained wards from Birmingham, Sandwell and Walsall.

[lancastrian]

Apr 6, 2016 15:19:37 GMT islington said:

Mar 7, 2016 17:46:37 GMT andrewteale said:

Here is my proposal for Cheshire and Greater Manchester.

Looking again at Andrew's plan posted a few weeks ago, and specifically at his three 'minus points':

Andrew later revised his plan to get rid of the ward splits, and I've suggested a version that also gets rid of the ward splits as well as avoiding the three-borough seat and treating Wigan with Gtr Manchester rather than with Liverpool (although there was a price to be paid in the less-than-lovely form of the 'Stretford and Irlam' seat).

It strikes me, too, that there's a way of splitting Runcorn only two ways rather than three - although, again, there's a price to pay elsewhere. 

WIDNES AND RUNCORN: Compared with Andrew's 'Halton' above, add Heath and remove Halton Castle and Halton Lea. (This also has the merit - at least, I think it is - of removing the Halton area, thus creating an opportunity to give the seat  a more meaningful name.) 73158

MID CHESHIRE: Compared with Andrew's 'Weaver Vale', gains 3 wards in the Borough of Halton (Beechwood, Halton Castle and Halton Lea) and one in CW&C (Kingsley); loses Davenham & Moulton (and this is the price you pay, since this removes the sorthern outskirts of Northwich; although the central part of the town stays in the seat). My suggested name is a personal preference; 'Northwich' or 'Weaver Vale' are other possibilities. 73317

WEST CHESHIRE: Compared with Andrew's 'Eddisbury', loses Kingsley as well as its wards in Halton borough; gains Davenham & Moulton. 'West Cheshire' strikes me as much the best name for this seat; a name like 'Eddisbury' conveys nothing except to the antiquarian, especially now that the underpinning LA name is no more. 73389 

In order to keep Northwich together and Runcorn in only two seats, I've created a plan which puts Lymm in the Tatton seat, which thus contains parts of Cheshire East, Trafford and Warrington. Shuffling a few wards round then gets everything within quota. 

This doesn't look too bad on a map, but I'd be surprised if the commission went for such a constituency crossing three councils. Is Lymm also one of those places that'll send in thousands of letters opposing any change (noting the fuss made about local boundary changes)?


Edit: An alternative based on andrewteale's map above:

CHESHIRE NORTH: The parts of Halton in Weaver Vale and Eddisbury on the map, Weaver/Cuddington and Marbury from Weaver Vale, Gowy, Kingsley, Frodsham, Helsby and Elton from Eddisbury, Saughall/Mollington from Chester.

CHESTER: As above plus Farndon minus Saughall and Mollington. 

EDDISBURY: Loses the wards to Cheshire North and Chester as described above, gains the four Northwich wards and Shakerley, can lose Malpas to Crewe purely for the sake of a nicer map.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2016 16:16:54 GMT minionofmidas said:

Apr 5, 2016 22:44:41 GMT Adrian said:

boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-02-25-Political-parties-meeting-note-final.pdf

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.
16.
If wards were to be split, BCE proposed to use polling districts as a recognised sub-ward unit of electoral administration. It did not propose to consider splitting a polling district. Polling district electorate data would be made available on BCE’s website, but only alongside the published initial proposals.
17.
The parties supported the approach of keeping ward-splitting to a minimum, and encouraged the development by BCE of some specific published criteria for the circumstances in which it would be prepared to consider splitting a ward, in order to avoid a potential deluge of split-ward counterproposals.

Thanks, I hadn't read that one. (Point 18 is important too, and very disappointing.)

Point 18 means that Lancaster, Wyre, and South Ribble will use the old wards, not their current ones. That'll be fun...

[iain]

Apr 7, 2016 9:40:54 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Apr 6, 2016 16:16:54 GMT minionofmidas said:

Thanks, I hadn't read that one. (Point 18 is important too, and very disappointing.)

Point 18 means that Lancaster, Wyre, and South Ribble will use the old wards, not their current ones. That'll be fun...

No it doesn't. Those wards were already in place in 2015.

[minionofmidas]

Apr 7, 2016 9:40:54 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Apr 6, 2016 16:16:54 GMT minionofmidas said:

Thanks, I hadn't read that one. (Point 18 is important too, and very disappointing.)

Point 18 means that Lancaster, Wyre, and South Ribble will use the old wards, not their current ones. That'll be fun...

It certainly means Birmingham uses the 40 3-member ward map and not the not-yet-finalized 77 1-and-2 member ward map. Which makes all the difference, of course. You could probably draw a reasonable map with no split wards with that one.

There are two or three councils that got finalized early this year (I know because, before coming here and finding the boundary finder, I looked them all up on the LGBCE site...). Not sure they'll particularly matter in redistricting, though.

[Deleted]

Apr 7, 2016 11:15:19 GMT iain said:

Apr 7, 2016 9:40:54 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Point 18 means that Lancaster, Wyre, and South Ribble will use the old wards, not their current ones. That'll be fun...

No it doesn't. Those wards were already in place in 2015.

:doffs cap:

'pologies.

[YL]

Apr 7, 2016 14:52:43 GMT minionofmidas said:

Apr 7, 2016 9:40:54 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Point 18 means that Lancaster, Wyre, and South Ribble will use the old wards, not their current ones. That'll be fun...

It certainly means Birmingham uses the 40 3-member ward map and not the not-yet-finalized 77 1-and-2 member ward map. Which makes all the difference, of course. You could probably draw a reasonable map with no split wards with that one.

There are two or three councils that got finalized early this year (I know because, before coming here and finding the boundary finder, I looked them all up on the LGBCE site...). Not sure they'll particularly matter in redistricting, though.

It was always likely that they would use the old wards in Brum, where the new wards haven't been finalised yet. The places where the situation feels a bit silly are the places where new wards are being used for elections this year, but the Commission are going to work with the old wards which will already have been abolished when they publish their proposals. This includes Knowsley, Sheffield, Peterborough and Bristol.

[Clarko]

Taken a pass at GM/Cheshire - it's not pretty, but it's all in quota!






1 Bolton North 73639
2 Westhoughton & Horwich 77871
3 Radcliffe & Farnworth 71273
4 Wigan 73019
5 Makerfield 71532
6 Leigh 73765
7 Salford & Eccles 72473
8 Swinton & Worsley 74004
9 Blackley & Broughton 72003
10 Prestwich & Middleton 76354
11 Bury 72069
12 Rochdale 73036
13 Littleborough & Saddleworth 76751
14 Oldham Central & Royton 75894
15 Chadderton & Droylsden 76338
16 Gorton & Reddish 71830
17 Manchester Central 73368
18 Manchester Fallowfield 75275
19 Manchester Didsbury & Wythenshawe 74315
20 Stockport 71476
21 Trafford South 76795
22 Trafford North 75620
23 Denton & Hyde 72063
24 Hazel Grove & Poynton 76193
25 Ashton-under-Lyne & Stalybridge 75577
26 Cheadle 77238
27 Macclesfield 77623
28 Crewe & Nantwich 72326
29 Congleton 77535
30 Northwich 72976
31 Halton 73759
32 Eddisbury 73721
33 City of Chester 73723
34 Wirral Deeside 77561
35 Ellesmere Port 74860
36 Birkenhead 72672
37 Wallasey 76052
38 Warrington East 75535
41 Warrington Central 77454

[longmonty]

Here is my attempt.
No split wards.
Inevitably a couple of compromises but overall not too bad.

[Deleted]

That's a couple of NW proposals which takes Fylde northward. I'm seriously suggesting a change of name to "Fylde and Over Wyre" if the BC suggests it.

[Deleted]

Oh, and don't call it "Ribble Valley and North Lancashire". There's a much better, more descriptive, title this forum knows all about since this time in the process four years ago. I'll be recommending that, too.

[Pete Whitehead]

Apr 8, 2016 14:49:57 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

That's a couple of NW proposals which takes Fylde northward. I'm seriously suggesting a change of name to "Fylde and Over Wyre" if the BC suggests it.

No need as Fylde is the name of the whole peninsula . What we now know as Fylde (district and constituency) is South Fylde

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2016 15:12:51 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Apr 8, 2016 14:49:57 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

That's a couple of NW proposals which takes Fylde northward. I'm seriously suggesting a change of name to "Fylde and Over Wyre" if the BC suggests it.

No need as Fylde is the name of the whole peninsula . What we now know as Fylde (district and constituency) is South Fylde

Spoilsport

[Devil Wincarnate]

Mar 11, 2016 20:37:37 GMT andrewteale said:

Cheshire and Greater Manchester are as per my earlier proposal with two changed areas. One is north-east Cheshire, or how you sort out the problem of the ward sizes in Stockport.

Compared to my previous proposal, here are the following changes.

TATTON (75536). No longer gains Prestbury from Macclesfield, instead gaining Dane Valley.

MACCLESFIELD (75686). As well as those swaps with Tatton, gains Bramhall South and Woodford ward from Cheadle; loses Disley ward to an expanded Hazel Grove.

CHEADLE (71139). Loses Bramhall South and Woodford to Macclesfield, gains Davenport and Cale Green from Stockport to just sneak in at the bottom end of the range.

HAZEL GROVE (74182). Gains Manor ward from Stockport, and Disley ward from Macclesfield.

So, no ward splits in Stockport, but there are now three seats crossing the Greater Manchester/Cheshire boundary instead of one. Which option will be preferred?

I like this, Disley should be under Stockport MBC anyway.

[Richard Gadsden]

As Parliamentary candidate for Blackley and Broughton, the first question I was asked by locals when describing the seat was "is Prestwich in there, then?"