Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 8:34:22 GMT
So in actual fact it should be called Biddulph because when you add Knypersley, the border of which is indistinguishable even to people who live there, it’s at least an equal population to the actual town of Leek. So what? Mere nit-picking trivia. One name....Leek....Job done. Move on. But he's proved to you that it's not nitpicking. There's no "one size fits all" policy. Seats contain different sized towns, suburbs, villages, parishes, there's nothing to say that what works for one could work for all. As I say, mercifully, the Boundary Commission rejects your cold, clinical administrative approach for something more accurate, respectful and organic.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2018 8:37:39 GMT
Mullen
No, I don't subscribe to 'that principle' at all. You are the one making the assertions and engaging in flights of fancy. It is all hyperbole by you and you are assuming you know the public mind far more than I do.
You suggest I am at risk of GBH and even death for the temerity of my one word or two word suggestions for names. That I shall die in Stoke after seeing the interior of a series of A&Es up and down the country! That is hyperbole of an extreme nature.
Yes, I don't care about Biddulph, Kidsgrove or Hessle because virtually no one has heard of any of them. Yes, I have because I have strong family associations with Staffs and Yorkshire having used restaurant, pub and been to church services at Hessle and had friends in Biddulph and a Mother who was a designer in the Potteries after attending Burslem School of Art. I am no soft southerner currently living in The Highlands as you suspect! I know of which I speak.
My name for my own constituency is just plain Ross. Much better.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2018 8:39:45 GMT
Absolutely. Finicking around so the name describes the boundaries of the seat is unnecessary. If I hear a reference to the MP for Leek or any other decent sized town I know where it is and have a bit of context. "Moorlands" could be a range of places from Devon to Northumberland. And including a number of small towns no-one outside of the district has heard of doesn't help either. The seat is called "Staffordshire Moorlands", what more do you want? Leek of course.....Leek!
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2018 8:41:04 GMT
So what? Mere nit-picking trivia. One name....Leek....Job done. Move on. But he's proved to you that it's not nitpicking. There's no "one size fits all" policy. Seats contain different sized towns, suburbs, villages, parishes, there's nothing to say that what works for one could work for all. As I say, mercifully, the Boundary Commission rejects your cold, clinical administrative approach for something more accurate, respectful and organic. As usual from you absolute bollocks on stilts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 8:45:58 GMT
The seat is called "Staffordshire Moorlands", what more do you want? Leek of course.....Leek! One last time. The seat covers more than just Leek.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on May 13, 2018 8:47:08 GMT
I live in the Bury St Edmunds constituency, not in BSE itself, but in another town the largest in second tier authority for the area. My town gets no mention in the constituency name but so what? Surely the purpose of the constituency name is not to pander to local sensibilities but to define where it is so that someone hearing the name doesn’t have to resort to Google to locate it.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2018 8:51:00 GMT
The name of an electoral division is simply a signifier or symbol, the purpose of which is to distinguish it from others. Keep it short. So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. Only an absurdly stupid voter would be confused by being placed in a Leek constituency because he was in a village a few miles outside it. Are the good people of the town of Tenderden confused by being in Ashford constituency? From which you then go from absurdity to outright insanity by suggesting I want such stupid voters to not vote because they can't believe they are actually in the constituency that has just sent them a polling card......because it fails to name the insignificant small town where they live! It is a strange parallel world you inhabit Dok on so many subjects.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2018 8:52:31 GMT
One last time. The seat covers more than just Leek. So bloody what? So does Ashford. So does Canterbury. So do many seats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 8:59:21 GMT
The name of an electoral division is simply a signifier or symbol, the purpose of which is to distinguish it from others. Keep it short. So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. People who are quite that stupid would be unlikely to vote anyway. Polling cards are sent out well before the election which are individually addressed, state the purpose of the election, give the name of the electoral division and explain exactly where to vote. What more can one reasonably do? Until recently I lived in a ward named "Snaresbrook" which, as well as the eponymous area, contained the part of Wanstead where I live. I don't recall anyone even commenting on the fact. I think there's a case that local authority areas should have more descriptive names, but that raises slightly different issues.
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 13, 2018 9:01:53 GMT
This is the most aerated discussion I've seen on this sort of subject.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 13, 2018 9:12:16 GMT
The name of an electoral division is simply a signifier or symbol, the purpose of which is to distinguish it from others. Keep it short. So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. No one is confused. No one thinks Southampton Test only covers the river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 9:15:54 GMT
I know some of you will frown at my source, but the Wikipedia article on Staffordshire Moorlands says the main settlements are 'Leek and Biddulph.' Leek is considerably more well-known than Biddulph and more of a focal point and indicator.
Similarly with Hull West and Hessle, although Hessle is a distinct community it is hard to argue that Hessle has no connection with Hull or at least the West of it, which it is directly adjacent to. There is no need whatsoever to change the names just because of one fragment, but it is not a major issue.
Going back to Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, I don't have a big issue with it but perhaps a name like South Ayrshire would suffice.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 10:03:08 GMT
The name of an electoral division is simply a signifier or symbol, the purpose of which is to distinguish it from others. Keep it short. So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. Do you have evidence of any voters being prevented from voting as a result of this kind of confusion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 10:19:00 GMT
So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. Do you have evidence of any voters being prevented from voting as a result of this kind of confusion? Do you have any evidence of the reverse? We can all shoot these questions about, Pete.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 13, 2018 10:43:52 GMT
We could, but it's an extraordinary claim. That requires at least some evidence to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 10:49:32 GMT
Do you have evidence of any voters being prevented from voting as a result of this kind of confusion? Do you have any evidence of the reverse? We can all shoot these questions about, Pete. Well there is evidence in terms of large numbers of people like middleenglander who live in towns other than those named in their constituency who manage nevertheless to vote in their constituency. If there were not we could expect a spectacularly low turnout in constituencies like Lewes or Daventry or Totnes. Over to you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 10:52:54 GMT
Do you have any evidence of the reverse? We can all shoot these questions about, Pete. Well there is evidence in terms of large numbers of people like middleenglander who live in towns other than those named in their constituency who manage nevertheless to vote in their constituency. If there were not we could expect a spectacularly low turnout in constituencies like Lewes or Daventry or Totnes. Over to you I'm not playing this game, you're being deliberately OTT.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 10:57:55 GMT
Sorry dok but you said The name of an electoral division is simply a signifier or symbol, the purpose of which is to distinguish it from others. Keep it short. So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. You started the sodding game, actually accusing somebody of wanting deliberately to confuse voters by this method. I have personally never come across voters being confused to the extent that they have not voted and such a thought would never have occurred to me. It has occurred to you either because you have come across such voters in your experience or it is a product of your fevered imagination and/or your ability to construct the flimsiest of straw men. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 13, 2018 10:59:52 GMT
Absolutely. Finicking around so the name describes the boundaries of the seat is unnecessary. If I hear a reference to the MP for Leek or any other decent sized town I know where it is and have a bit of context. "Moorlands" could be a range of places from Devon to Northumberland. And including a number of small towns no-one outside of the district has heard of doesn't help either. The seat is called "Staffordshire Moorlands", what more do you want? Well, fair enough, but its still not as helpful to me as "Leek". If I'm looking at a road atlas, or driving across the country, or putting a name into AA routefinder/satnav or whatever, "Leek" means something, "Staffordshire Moorlands" doesn't. Which means that Leek sits in my consciousness as a place that I know of and I've a rough idea of what's near it - I wouldn't know for sure Biddulph was in the constituency but it wouldn't surprise me; but "Staffordshire Moorlands" is just somewhere in Staffs and without looking it up I wouldn't know which towns are in it. Regarding connections such as roads, I agree with you, as an MP representing a community you need there to be a community, some sense that there is a common interest which is hard to sustain if people don't even visit the rest of the constituency and even harder if they actively dislike each other. But that's about boundaries rather than names. I don't know if people in Biddulph are so consumed with resentment at Leek that they would object to being in a constituency s called, but I really don't think they are saying to themselves "ah yes, we are the folk of the Staffordshire Moorlands and none shall rend us asunder" either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 11:11:18 GMT
Sorry dok but you said So "Leek" is fine even if that confuses voters who might think the seat only covers that one specific town? So you want to potentially stop voters going to the polls because they might think they don't live in a specific constituency. Interesting. You started the sodding game, actually accusing somebody of wanting deliberately to confuse voters by this method. I have personally never come across voters being confused to the extent that they have not voted and such a thought would never have occurred to me. It has occurred to you either because you have come across such voters in your experience or it is a product of your fevered imagination and/or your ability to construct the flimsiest of straw men. Which is it? Fine, there is potential for confusion. I can't get the exact paragraph of the specific Boundary Commission meeting, but I do know that people do bring up the names of constituencies as meaning something to them. It's important not to cause confusion with either the shape of a seat or its name. If you insist on only giving a single name to a sprawling rural constituency you are potentially deliberately causing confusion. "Leek" is the name of a town, not an entire rural constituency. "Barrow" is just a town, it's not the region around it. I'm not the only person on this forum who believes that constituency names should be descriptive. I'm not the only person on this forum who thinks that it is wrong to just give a seat the name of a single town or suburb. You've "known" me for long enough to know that I have held this opinion for a very, very long time. Better "Staffordshire Moorlands" than just "Leek" as a safeguard against potential confusion. And that, as they say, is that.
|
|