• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

Boundaries

Recommended Posts

We further proposed a Prestwich and Middleton constituency, comprising five wards from the Borough of Bury, and five wards from the Borough of Rochdale. The Rochdale constituency was significantly reconfigured to include most of the town of Rochdale, including the town centre, and
most of the town of Heywood. We proposed a new, moor-based Littleborough and Saddleworth constituency, which contained five wards each from the boroughs of Rochdale and Oldham, and included the Moston ward from Manchester Central in our compact Oldham constituency. Further
south from Oldham, we proposed a Failsworth and Droylsden constituency, which contained wards from four existing constituencies in the boroughs of Oldham and Tameside.
 
553. Elsewhere in Tameside, our proposed Ashton-under-Lyne constituency included both the towns of
 
Mossley and Stalybridge, as well as both the Dukinfield and Dukinfield Stalybridge wards, which
were previously in different constituencies.
554. We proposed two cross-county boundary constituencies that included wards from the boroughs
of both Stockport and Tameside: Marple and Hyde, which included four wards from each
borough; and Stockport North and Denton, which included three Borough of Tameside wards
and five Borough of Stockport wards. Our proposed Stockport South and Cheadle constituency
included only Borough of Stockport wards, in a configuration that allowed Cheadle Hulme and
Cheadle to remain together.
555. We recommended two constituencies that crossed the county boundary between Greater
Manchester and Cheshire. We proposed a Bramhall and Poynton constituency that comprised
five wards from the Borough of Stockport (including the towns of Bramhall and Hazel Grove)
and five wards from Cheshire East (including the towns of Poynton, Disley, and Handforth). The
other constituency that crossed the county boundary between Greater Manchester and Cheshire,
Altrincham and Tatton Park, is addressed later in this repor
 
From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-boundary-commissions-boundary-review-2018?utm_source=b1642f14-8f61-4bf7-82eb-ca7ce8417e66&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate


In the Borough of Oldham, many respondents expressed objections to the proposed Failsworth and Droylsden constituency, considering the inclusion of wards from the Borough of Tameside to be undesirable, and noting that the M60 motorway bisected the constituency. Counter-proposals received for this area included one that contained two constituencies wholly within the Borough of Oldham, and another that altered three constituencies in order to restore ties that had been broken. Other respondents opposed the division of Royton between the Oldham, and Littleborough and Saddleworth constituencies. In the Borough of Rochdale, some respondents objected to any modifications to the existing Rochdale, and Heywood and Middleton constituencies, due to both having electorates within the permitted range, and suggested that these constituencies remain unaltered. The cross-borough boundary constituency of Littleborough and Saddleworth was supported by some, but others considered a constituency with two different local authority areas to be undesirable, and also felt that the exclusion of the Saddleworth West and Lees ward from the constituency divided Saddleworth between constituencies.

Therefore, we recommended that the proposed

constituencies of Ashton-under-Lyne, Blackley and Broughton, Bolton North East, Bolton West,
Leigh, Makerfield, Manchester Central, Manchester Gorton, Manchester Withington, Marple and

Hyde, Rochdale, Salford and Eccles, Stockport North and Denton, Stockport South and Cheadle,
Stretford and Urmston, Worsley and Eccles South, and Wythenshawe and Sale East remain

So Oldham east and west are changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the revised proposals for constituencies within the Borough of Oldham, some respondents considered the inclusion of both the Royton North and Royton South wards in the Oldham constituency to be an improvement, but other respondents felt that the name of the constituency was not a true reflection of its composition. Some suggested that as the constituency contained the three wards that comprise Chadderton (Chadderton Central, Chadderton North and Chadderton South), the name of the town should feature in the constituency. Others suggested that for similar reasons, the town of Royton should feature in the name of the constituency. Other respondents, however, still considered both the Oldham, and Failsworth and Droylsden constituencies to be incoherent, and proposed alternative configurations for these constituencies

 


I know who will have asked for Chadderton to be included in the name :-D
 

We therefore recommend no amendments to the revised proposals for Rochdale, Littleborough and Saddleworth, and Oldham constituencies in our final recommendations. 578. We did, however, consider that persuasive evidence had been received regarding the naming of the Oldham, and Failsworth and Droylsden constituencies. We consider the names of Oldham North, and Oldham South and Droylsden to better reflect the composition of these constituencies, and therefore recommend that these constituencies are named as such in our final recommendations


So they're not doing anything useful round here - and are changing names. SO how much did this report cost?
I did feedback on some of the proposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldham North BC 73,825 Moston Manchester 11,166 Chadderton Central Oldham 7,782 Chadderton North Oldham 8,114 Chadderton South Oldham 7,509 Coldhurst Oldham 7,933 Royton North Oldham 7,736 Royton South Oldham 8,105 St. James’ Oldham 7,556 Waterhead Oldham 7,924

From the second document
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739178/Boundary_Commission_England_Report_Volume_2.pdf

So they've included Moston in it .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LC1 said:

What fuckery is this?

Boundary changes. Or not. Depending on which bit you read.
There may yet be a third document on the link that I've not got round to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.