Topic detail page
Previous page
Showing posts 1 to 30 of 52 Show all posts
Boundary Review
Topic posted by Mike_C ... dated:12 August 2005
The Conservatives in Trafford have proposed scrapping the current Stretford and Urmston constituency (represented by Bev Hughes), arguing that putting Urmston, Flixton and Davyhulme (plus Stretford ward) with Sale and Ashton-on-Mersey better reflects local communities.

The new constituency to be named 'Davyhulme'
The 'surplus' wards in Stretford and Old Trafford to be joined with Salford.

Partington to be placed in a revised Altrincham constituency.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Aardvark ... dated:06 August 2021

Consultation has begun on a review of ward boundaries: https://www.trafford.gov.uk/residents/news/articles/2021/20210615-Have-your-say-on-changes-to-Trafford-Council-wards.aspx.

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Edward ... dated:17 September 2016

Over the years there have been periodic boundary reviews of parliamentry seats, mainly to compensate for population changes and a reduction of Scottish seats following the ebstablishment of the Scottish Parliament. Where possible constituencies were to be of approximately equal in terms of population and the number of electors taking into account natural boundaries, national and local administrative boundaries, geographical features and population distribution. Thus, whilst most constituencies were of a simular size inner city seats tended to be smaller because of a higher caseload and seats in places such as Scotland, Wales and East Anglia tended to cover vast areas but with fewer electors because of a low population density.

Since the end of World War II there has only been a net increase of ten Westminster seats, 1.6%, whilst the United Kingdom population has increased by almost 25%. Inspite of such a large increase in population over that time and thus the potential increase in the workload of individual Members of Parliament associated with such population growth, the Tories, for their own reasons, intend to reduce the number of MPs by 50, from 650 to 600, a 7.7% reduction.

At present the average number of electors in 650 UK parliamentry seats is approximately 68,000. The government proposals now require the four national boundary commissions to create 600 seats where, with four exceptions, every seat in the UK will have no fewer than 71,031 and no more than 78,507 electors. This drive for artificial equality will create constituencies covering larger geographic areas with increased numbers of electors, often ignoring natural boundaries and linking dissimular populations just to make the numbers up. For instance, Altrincham will take in a large area of north Cheshire (currently part of Tatton constituency) extending out to the south of Knutsford. That should produce an interesting situation as to whether the Tories allocate Mr Brady or Mr Osborne to the seat. Sale east of Washway Road will be joined to Wythenshawe and take in Manchester Airport. Losing Carrington / Partington but gaining Ashton on Mersey will probably make Stretford and Urmston more marginal than at present because of the differing political outlooks of the wards in question.

I do not know why some people are rejoicing at the proposed reduction in parliamentry representation. It will only serve to increase the workload of the remaining members and reduce the already shallow pool of talent available to provide ministers, parliamentry secretaries and the like to form future governments. It is noted that the Tories do not intend to reduce tne number of ministers or the payrole vote under these proposals. If anything, considering the huge increase of population over the years the number of MPs should be increased proportionally!

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Graz ... dated:16 September 2016

So why do all the papers say its the governemt who wish to change the boundaries this time?

Well, I think you've provided the answer in your question - the papers don't print an objective view of the facts and let the reader make an informed choice, they print whatever agenda their owner wants to push to sell papers.

The Boundary Commission are an independent and impartial advisory public body.

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Edd ... dated:16 September 2016

I'm pleased we are reducing the number of MPs.

Politics has been one of the UK's few booming industries in recent years, with new parliaments in Wales and Scotland, and the new assembly in London.

The whole thing has been a massive employment opportunity for ever more politicians and their ever growing bureaucracies.

Devolution of powers should mean fewer MPs are needed at Westmisnter.

I look forward to the time when the UK has no MEPs, That is a huge gravy train for people who have no real powers or responsibility.

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Oscar ... dated:15 September 2016

When I mentioned about boundry changes the other month I said that labour engineered the change and lumbered Stretford in with Urmston to get them more votes, I was quickly shouted down and was told its a totaly independant quango that sets up the boundaries.

So why do all the papers say its the governemt who wish to change the boundaries this time?

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by AnotherPete ... dated:15 September 2016

If you go here and enter your postcode into the field below the first graph and above the map, it will show you more clearly.

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Divad ... dated:15 September 2016

The map produced in MEN didn't show changes for our district. It was difficult to read as it was very small and lacking in detail. The fact is, this being political, it will not change anything in general.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Graz ... dated:14 September 2016

What are the thoughts on the latest proposals for the Stretford & Urmston constituency? We seem to be losing the Carrington & Partington areas and gaining a bit more of Ashton-on-Mersey.

Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by clrMikeCordingley ... dated:13 September 2011
Graz,
I do totally agree with you. And frightenly, this is going to happen every 5 years now. So if the developments at Trafford Quays and Carrington do get built and occupied, we could be looking at Ashton-on-Mersey returning to Altrincham at the next review.
I would have more sympathy with the desire to reduce the size of parliament if David Cameron hadn't massively increased the size of the unelected Lords, each one putting an extra £200k onto the Treasury Bill. No doubt he'll find places in the Lords for those displaced in this cull too.
Mike Cordingley
Councillor for Gorse Hill
www.gorsehill-labour.co.uk
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Graz ... dated:13 September 2011
It's as good as they could do - although if the strange decision to create an electoral ward that paired together Partington and Ashton-On-Mersey had not been agreed in the first place, there would be no need to now hive off part of Sale from their natural community of Sale & Altrincham. I sometimes wonder if the tight controls on trying to equalise the constituencies population doesn't cause more trouble than it's worth.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by clrMikeCordingley ... dated:13 September 2011
For information.
As most will know, the Boundary Commission are revising Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in order to reduce the number of MPs and to equalise sizes.
The Commission has now issued its initial proposals. As far as we are concerned, they propose minimal change to the Stretford and Urmston Constituency. I have copied the following paragraph from their report:
 
"72. We propose minimal change to the Stretford and Urmston constituency, which is expanded to include Ashton upon Mersey. The remaining Borough of Trafford wards are included in our proposed Altrincham and Sale constituency, which combines Altrincham and Hale with much of Sale."
 
Ashton upon Mersey Trafford 7,293
Bucklow-St Martins Trafford 7,182
Clifford Trafford 7,324
Davyhulme East Trafford 7,737
Davyhulme West Trafford 7,574
Flixton Trafford 8,410
Gorse Hill Trafford 7,921
Longford Trafford 8,551
Stretford Trafford 7,758
Urmston Trafford 8,063
 
So Stretford and Urmston Constituency just gains the additional Ashton on Mersey ward. This makes sense as the Partington ward of Bucklow St Martins already contains a little of what I would call Ashton on Mersey (around the Mersey Farms Hotel). So it strengthens the community of interest there, giving Ashton on Mersey a less divided parliamentary voice.
 
Mike Cordingley
Councillor for Gorse Hill Ward
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by DavidU ... dated:15 April 2006
One thing that I have noticed whilst delving into the boundary question is that the interval between revisions seems to become shorter.

This revision takes effect at the next general election, sometime before May 2009. The last revision took effect in 1997. The previous one took effect in 1983.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Steve ... dated:14 April 2006
Fair enough, my mistake there. Goes to show how bizarre the boundaries all are, I guess!
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by PeteM ... dated:14 April 2006
As 3 into 2 won't go in Salford let's hope Hazel Blears is ousted from the area. I really can't stand that smarmy Blairite excuse for a politician.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by DavidU ... dated:14 April 2006
If anyone is really interested the revised Worsley constituency will be formed from nine wards within the City of Salford.
They are: Barton, Boothstown & Ellenbrook, Cadishead, Irlam, Little Hulton, Walkden North, Walkden South, Winton and Worsley.
It will be a county constituency with an electorate of 72,554.

The new Salford and Eccles constituency will be formed from nine wards within the City of Salford.
They are: Claremont, Eccles, Irwell Riverside, Langworthy, Ordsall, Pendlebury, Swinton North, Swinton South and Weaste & Seedley.
It will be a borough constituency with an electorate of 73,162.

The revised Stretford and Urmston constituency will be formed from nine wards from within the Borough of Trafford.
They are: Bucklow-St Martins, Clifford, Davyhulme East, Davyhulme West, Flixton, Gorse Hill, Longford, Stretford and Urmston.
It will be a borough constituency with an electorate of 72,414.

The revised Altrincham and Sale West constituency will be formed from nine wards within the Borough of Trafford.
They are: Altrincham, Ashton upon Mersey, Bowdon, Broadheath, Hale Barns, Hale Central, St Mary’s, Timperley and Village.
It will be a borough constituency with an electorate of 69,605.

The cross border Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency will consist of five wards from the City of Manchester and three wards from the Borough of Trafford.
They are: Baguley, Brooklands, Northenden, Sharston and Woodhouse Park from Manchester with Brooklands, Priory and Sale Moor from Trafford.
It will be a borough constituency with an electorate of 72,093.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by DavidU ... dated:14 April 2006
Sorry Steve, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The present Worsley constituency includes four Wigan wards: Astly-Mosley Common, Leigh East, Leigh South and Tyldsley. It is these which are going to go into the new revised Leigh constituency. The remainder of Worsley is formed from wards within Salford. These will remain with the addition of Barton, Irlam and Cadishead to form a revised Worsley constituency entirely within the Salford boundary.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Steve ... dated:14 April 2006
According to www.electoralcalculus.co.uk, 36.5% of Worsley is being put into Leigh.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by DavidU ... dated:14 April 2006
Salford and Eccles combined is too large for one constituency, so the review proposed to add the two Salford wards east of the River Irwell to a Manchester constituency. Salford and Eccles would then form one constituency and Worsley, incorporating Irlam, Cadishead and Barton another. Both would lie entirely within the Borough boundaries with the natural boundary of the River Irwell and the Manchester Ship Canal. Neither would extend into Wigan so no part of Salford would be in Leigh constituency.

In Trafford the current constituencies will remain unchanged, apart from minor tidying up to realign revised ward boundaries with the constituency boundaries. Bucklow-Saint Martin's is an artificial creation formed from two former wards during the revision of Trafford ward boundaries a couple of years ago. That boundary revision resulted in the first all-out local election, in which every council seat was up for election instead of just one third, since the 1970s, which enabled the Tories to take decisive control of the Borough. As Bucklow-Saint Martin's is now split between the two constituencies (one of the two former wards is in each) and it has to go entirely into one or the other, the review put it into Stretford and Urmston on numerical grounds.

The missing piece, the three wards which form part of the Wythenshawe constituency, although not ideal from a Trafford viewpoint, do have well defined boundaries within Trafford of the River Mersey, the A56 road and Baguley Brook.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Steve ... dated:14 April 2006
The problem here was that even when you turn Salford and Eccles into one constituency, they still haven't got enough people (but still have two MPs till the next election). But the way they did it was to merge Salford's three into two and shunt half of Worsley into Leigh- so same thing were moaning about, just that the people in Worsley have to put up with it.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Douglas ... dated:14 April 2006
Unchanged ?

According to the release all of the Bucklow-St Martins ward is now to be in Stretford and Urmston rather than being split with Altrincham and Sale. So if anything that makes Stretford & Urmston a safer Labour seat and Altrincham & Sale a safer Conservative seat
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by DavidU ... dated:13 April 2006
Judging from the provisional report from the Boundary Commission for the Greater Manchester constituencies (published this week) they have not got away with it. The three Trafford constituencies are to remain unchanged.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Robert ... dated:26 August 2005
Geoff, the problem is that all of the constituencies in Greater Manchester are being considered at the same time. You have to make up constituencies of around 70,000 voters. That the Boundary Commissions rules.

I am glad that I didn't have to submit a proposal because it would be very difficult if not near impossible to please everyone.

Trafford has sufficient electors for 2.36 Members of Parliament, so some of the Trafford electors will have to be linked to another area.

I have looked at the Boundary Commissions recommendations and the areas concerned. These proposals have generated a significant number of objections, alternate proposals and in some cases letters of agreement. Getting this right is not going to be an easy option. At the moment with the 1997 Boundaries, Sale is split between Wythenshawe and Sale East, and Altincham and Sale West. The Sale element that are in Wythenshawe are not happy about that.

I am sure that many are not happy about the proposals put in by the Labour and Liberal Democrate Parties, althought neither of these change the current situation in Trafford.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Geoff ... dated:26 August 2005
These areas, Gorse Hill and Old Trafford in Trafford and Ordsall and Salford Quays in Salford have no interaction at all in terms of shared community services, transport links or health provision. There is very little of 'The Quays' on the Trafford side as it is mainly Trafford Park - another expanse that natuarally separates them. Their respective communities are also separated by the Manchester Ship Canal and they belong to different Local Authorities. Now either The Conservative proposal was written during a session of drinking magic mushroom flavoured tea or they ran out of electorate and decided to make up the numbers from the nearest locality.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Ian ... dated:22 August 2005
Natural communities should be kept together regardless of the number of electorate per councillor or MP. Why is it so important all of a sudden for every constituency to have the same rate? All that happens is areas are thrown together regardless of their history or needs. I mean have you seen the electoral ward of Bucklow-St.Martins? It's all of Partington and Carrington and then an expanse of chemical works and fields and then a small section of Ashton-on-Mersey next to Manor Avenue. Not very sensible.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Phil ... dated:22 August 2005
The Boundary Commission proposal is that Trafford has two whole constituancies allocated to it. They are Altrincham / Sale West with an electorate of 69,605 and Stretford / Urmston with an electorate of 72,414. Both constituancies will consist of 9 Wards.
Only a minimal change is proposed and that is to include the whole of the Bucklow St Martins Ward (Partington etc) in the Stretford / Urmston seat. At present this ward is split between the two seats.
No other changes are proposed.
Brooklands, Priory and Sale Moor wards are to remain part of the Wythenshawe and Sale East seat.
As the Boundary Commission are a Non Government Organisation no political bias should be attached to their proposals, any counter proposals by political parties or individuals must have some form of vested interest attached.
I would hope that the Commissions view prevails when the decision on the Boundaries is finally made in November.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Robert ... dated:21 August 2005
Dave66
Good idea but impractical. By splitting Trafford into two (Altrincham & Sale, Stretford & Urmston) and moving out Bowden, Hale and Bucklow St Martins (Partington) wards has a number of problems. Which shows how difficult it is to get the constituencies equal.

Greater Manchester is one of the last of the reviews. I am sure the Tatton Constituency has already been reviewed, so moving Bowden and Hale is a not practical. All the wards would have to be moved around within Greater Manchester.

Partington with Warrington South, this again creates a problem is that you have to cross Bowden Ward to get to Warrington South. Bowden stretches all the way to Warburton Bridge.

The wards that are left in Altrincham and Sale (excluding Bowden and Hale) adds up to 75902 electors which is 8% above the average for a constituency. Stretford and Urmston would be 61659 which is 12% below the average. The Boundary Commission has to ensure that constituencies meet the electoral quota of 69935 electors. So both would fail the test.

As far as your comment about the Conservative Party, well I am sure the same could be levelled at the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Both have submitted proposals for the whole of Greater Manchester.

The local inspector will determine the outcome after hearing all of the proposals. A difficult job.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Dave66 ... dated:21 August 2005
Proposals submitted by the Tory party are submitted for the benefit of the Tory party. That's natural. The proposed reincarnation of the Davyhulme constituency is not natural. It is an attempt to join two unrelated districts divided by a river. Stretford and Urmston is natural, it joins two similar, adjacent, districts with no obvious boundary between them but with very distinct external boundaries.

It is said that Trafford is too big for two but not big enough for three. Then let's build enough houses on all the open land to make the population large enough for three.

No?

Then let's try something else.

Stretford and Urmston fit. There's one.

Sale and Altrincham fit. There's two.

Hale and Bowden think they're too posh for Trafford. Fine, put them in with Knutsford and Wilmslow into Tatton. That's two and a bit.

Now, what's left?

Ah, Partington. Now that doesn't fit anywhere really, does it? I know, give it to Warrington South. It's next to Lymm as much as it's next to anywhere.

There, problem solved. Two natural constituencies and two left-overs hived off elsewhere.

Now I will remove the bulge from the side of my face and go for a brew while I think of another problem to solve!
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Robert ... dated:19 August 2005
Mike C
Thanks for the explanation. I take your point about winning the argument and the overall outcome. The problem with this process is the Independent Local Inspector could decide to recommend the Boundary Commission solution, any of the proposals put by the Councils, Political Parties, individuals or indeed one that has not been presented so far.

At the last review many residents complained about the creation of Stretford and Urmston from parts of the Stretford and Davyhulme Constituencies. I cannot remember the actual number but it was significant and their feelings were ignored.

There have been a number of questions over consultation. The problem is when a proposal is submitted for the whole of Greater Manchester I think it would be very difficult to gain consensus on any proposal. I am sure that the Conservative Party will put some information out to residents in the affected areas, which explains the proposal and why they came to the conclusion they did. Its interesting to note that in today's Metro newspaper they have an article about new homes and the price for houses in the Quays rising faster than in other areas. The Quays being seen as a vital regeneration area.

Whatever the outcome, I am sure that the Local Inspector will come to a balance and subjective view on this.
Re: Boundary Review
Reply posted by Mike_C ... dated:18 August 2005
Robert,
I have just noticed that I have led you into believing that I was criticising councillors who are from outside their ward. My point was only that Cllrs Bailey and Hooley, living as they do in the proposed Salford constituency, are best placed within the Tory contingent to comment on the 'strong community' with Salford.

Having said that,I have been looking at how the commission dealt with Birmingham and I'm surprised that the Conservatives in Davyhulme etc are so relaxed about this. There are two decisions for the boundary commission to decide upon: the groupings of Local Authorities, and the drawing of consituency boundaries.
It is not inconceivable that the Conservatives win the argument that Trafford needs to be linked with Salford but the commission is impressed by the local hostility expressed in Stretford.

In Birmingham, the commission came up with their own revision (proposed by neither main political party). If this was repeated, it could mean the border being breached elsewhere.
Previous pageTop of the page