|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 20:50:02 GMT
Ilford North isn't so bad - it does still mostly contain areas that were in the pre-64 borough of Ilford and I'm not sure of what other name would be more appropriate? Gants Hill is the only name I can think of that would be vaguely appropriate for the area but it wouldn't be an improvement IMO Clearly it should be Redbridge North. There is no one settlement dominating and it contains solely wards from the northern part of the borough of Redbridge.
Very funny..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 20:59:33 GMT
I meant to respond earlier but I would like to know why you disagree. It would avoid ludicrous names like 'Bury South' where Whitefield would suffice as a much better name. Similarly Durham North, and Durham North West. I feel very strongly that constituencies should be described in terms of local authorities, as neatly and consistently as possible. Consequently, Bury is one of the relatively few areas that I absolutely wouldn't complain about at the moment! The borough of Bury is divided into Bury North and Bury South. These two seats contain the entirety of the borough, with nothing else added and nothing left over. Perfect. Not ludicrous at all. About as elegant as it could possibly be, in fact.
There aren't that many parts of the country where this happens as cleanly as this. (I'd also be happy if each seat within the borough had a unique name, like Putney, Battersea and Tooting do within Wandsworth, for example, but Wandsworth NE, NW and S would be OK in that instance.)
Now, if you think that the Bury local authority should perhaps have a different name, or have different boundaries, I might agree, but that's a problem with the name of the underlying authority, not the constituencies. For example, if the local authority were to be called 'Irwell', and the two seats were called 'Bury' and 'Radcliffe & Prestwich' or something, I'd be fine with that.
It's the inconsistency of the way in which names are used that I particularly despise. Bury, Wigan, Ipswich, Leeds, Hackney, all handling the local authority name differently from one another.
But this is where I don't agree, and not just with you but the similar attitude shared by Pete, Carlton and others. "All handling the local authority name differently from another," is not a problem. It's a strength. It shouldn't be "one size fits all", which I think is the natural conclusion of your attitude. Each constituency name should reflect the communities inside the boundaries, not just satisfy a bland tick-box list of requirements. Why not "Prestwich and Radcliffe", why not "Battersea", why not "Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford"?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 13, 2018 21:05:33 GMT
I might start a thread for best constituency names. Eye. The Eyes have it.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 21:13:49 GMT
I feel very strongly that constituencies should be described in terms of local authorities, as neatly and consistently as possible. Consequently, Bury is one of the relatively few areas that I absolutely wouldn't complain about at the moment! The borough of Bury is divided into Bury North and Bury South. These two seats contain the entirety of the borough, with nothing else added and nothing left over. Perfect. Not ludicrous at all. About as elegant as it could possibly be, in fact.
There aren't that many parts of the country where this happens as cleanly as this. (I'd also be happy if each seat within the borough had a unique name, like Putney, Battersea and Tooting do within Wandsworth, for example, but Wandsworth NE, NW and S would be OK in that instance.)
Now, if you think that the Bury local authority should perhaps have a different name, or have different boundaries, I might agree, but that's a problem with the name of the underlying authority, not the constituencies. For example, if the local authority were to be called 'Irwell', and the two seats were called 'Bury' and 'Radcliffe & Prestwich' or something, I'd be fine with that.
It's the inconsistency of the way in which names are used that I particularly despise. Bury, Wigan, Ipswich, Leeds, Hackney, all handling the local authority name differently from one another.
But this is where I don't agree, and not just with you but the similar attitude shared by Pete, Carlton and others. The above bears no relation to my attitude. It is the inappropriate use of borough/district names that I abhor above all, as in the Bury case(s) as with the likes of Wyre Forest, Gravesham, Waveney, Halton etc, though in many cases that is a problem caused by the fuckwittedness of the local authority names in the first place. But the BC are under no obligation to adopt such names. The logic of Sir Benjamins take on this is that Saffron Walden would be called Uttlesford, Devizes would have been known as Kennet, Hemel Hempstead would be Dacorum East perhaps (and actually Staffordshire Moorlands which you have argued for and I against is also an example of the local authority name taking over). I would rather have your Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew style of name than a whole bunch of Tandridges and Baberghs or Havering South, Tameside North, Sandwell SE and all the other kind of ridiculous crap that this system would generate
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,173
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 13, 2018 21:17:47 GMT
I don't dislike the name 'West Bromwich West', but it does sound like something out of a Monty Python sketch. It also doesn't contain any part of the town of West Bromwich. Sandwell NW would be better, as there isn't a dominant town in the area.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on May 13, 2018 21:19:58 GMT
I don't dislike the name 'West Bromwich West', but it does sound like something out of a Monty Python sketch. It also doesn't contain any part of the town of West Bromwich. Sandwell NW would be better, as there isn't a dominant town in the area. Wednesbury!
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 21:23:19 GMT
I don't dislike the name 'West Bromwich West', but it does sound like something out of a Monty Python sketch. It also doesn't contain any part of the town of West Bromwich. Sandwell NW would be better, as there isn't a dominant town in the area. And now I know people are just coming on this thread in order to wind me up. That seat contains three towns whose names have at some time been included in a constituency and the best you can do is Sandwell NW ? Easy enough to go for a double barreled name which I don't object to in certain circumstances, but actually plain Wednesbury would do fine
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,173
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 13, 2018 21:23:51 GMT
It also doesn't contain any part of the town of West Bromwich. Sandwell NW would be better, as there isn't a dominant town in the area. Wednesbury! It's not big enough, there's Tipton as well, and Oldbury, where the Borough council offices are. It really is multi-centred.
|
|
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 21:26:54 GMT
Erewash is not in Leicestershire. Exactly. You’d never know from the name.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 13, 2018 21:29:25 GMT
It's not big enough, there's Tipton as well, and Oldbury, where the Borough council offices are. It really is multi-centred. Shithole Central? Or IKEA Wednesbury.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 13, 2018 22:10:34 GMT
It also doesn't contain any part of the town of West Bromwich. Sandwell NW would be better, as there isn't a dominant town in the area. And now I know people are just coming on this thread in order to wind me up. That seat contains three towns whose names have at some time been included in a constituency and the best you can do is Sandwell NW ? Easy enough to go for a double barreled name which I don't object to in certain circumstances, but actually plain Wednesbury would do fine Have we done the unreasonableness gag?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 22:16:31 GMT
And now I know people are just coming on this thread in order to wind me up. That seat contains three towns whose names have at some time been included in a constituency and the best you can do is Sandwell NW ? Easy enough to go for a double barreled name which I don't object to in certain circumstances, but actually plain Wednesbury would do fine Have we done the unreasonableness gag? What is that ?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 13, 2018 22:26:31 GMT
Have we done the unreasonableness gag? What is that ? "Wednesbury unreasonableness" = administration so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could act so. (Something to do with rugby and South Africa during apartheid IIRC) You'll have to make up your own punchline about people winding you up with constituency names no reasonable person would use.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 13, 2018 22:27:39 GMT
"Wednesbury unreasonableness" = administration so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could act so. (Something to do with rugby and South Africa during apartheid IIRC) No, the original ruling came in a case about whether cinemas could open on Sundays.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 13, 2018 22:40:06 GMT
"Wednesbury unreasonableness" = administration so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could act so. (Something to do with rugby and South Africa during apartheid IIRC) No, the original ruling came in a case about whether cinemas could open on Sundays. Ah, thanks. I have a vague memory of Leicester RFC being on the wrong end of council sanctions for going to South Africa, perhaps that was struck down on the Wednesbury principle. Wildly off-topic, but I wonder if Leicester Tigers are the only sports club to derive their nickname from the county regiment. Maybe we could have constituency names on a similar basis - "MP for Baggies" or "The Right Hon Member for Die Hards Central"
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on May 13, 2018 22:44:36 GMT
Clearly it should be Redbridge North. There is no one settlement dominating and it contains solely wards from the northern part of the borough of Redbridge.
Very funny.. Barkingside & Woodford Bridge?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2018 22:48:18 GMT
Barkingside & Woodford Bridge? Maybe Roding Valley wouldn't be the worst name if you felt the need to acknowledge the non-Ilford parts of the seat, but you know, if it ain't bust..
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,173
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 14, 2018 8:17:44 GMT
Barkingside & Woodford Bridge? Maybe Roding Valley wouldn't be the worst name if you felt the need to acknowledge the non-Ilford parts of the seat, but you know, if it ain't bust.. Perhaps using tube stations as the basis for London constituency names isn't such a bad idea ...
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 14, 2018 8:26:09 GMT
Maybe Roding Valley wouldn't be the worst name if you felt the need to acknowledge the non-Ilford parts of the seat, but you know, if it ain't bust.. Perhaps using tube stations as the basis for London constituency names isn't such a bad idea ... Tootings Bec and Broadway.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on May 14, 2018 9:10:00 GMT
Maybe Roding Valley wouldn't be the worst name if you felt the need to acknowledge the non-Ilford parts of the seat, but you know, if it ain't bust.. Perhaps using tube stations as the basis for London constituency names isn't such a bad idea ... Cities of London and Westminster is going to be absurdly long in that case...
|
|