|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 9, 2020 22:27:52 GMT
To be fair, they are not exactly up to date membership figures!
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 15, 2020 16:57:42 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Apr 15, 2020 17:05:54 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. Several other cities seem to have all of their councillors from the same party. Wells has a Liberal Democrat hegemony, with its five district and one county councillor all orange. Durham and Winchester also have exclusively Liberal Democrat councillors within the city's limits, but there are other parties in the district (or former district) bearing the city's name. How many other cases are there? I can't think of anywhere exclusively Labour, and it seems unlikely that any exist (Labour do best in larger cities and these tend to have a lot of councillors - so more possible seats for the opposition).
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Apr 15, 2020 19:14:03 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. If St. Asaph's a city then I'm the king of Belgium...
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Apr 15, 2020 19:16:57 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. If St. Asaph's a city then I'm the king of Belgium... What's your point, your majesty?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 15, 2020 20:01:46 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. If St. Asaph's a city then I'm the king of Belgium... Welkom in Llanelwy, Uwe Majestiet.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,572
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Apr 15, 2020 20:24:54 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. Several other cities seem to have all of their councillors from the same party. Wells has a Liberal Democrat hegemony, with its five district and one county councillor all orange. Durham and Winchester also have exclusively Liberal Democrat councillors within the city's limits, but there are other parties in the district (or former district) bearing the city's name. How many other cases are there? I can't think of anywhere exclusively Labour, and it seems unlikely that any exist (Labour do best in larger cities and these tend to have a lot of councillors - so more possible seats for the opposition). Gateshead within the town/city itself?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 15, 2020 20:30:55 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. Several other cities seem to have all of their councillors from the same party. Wells has a Liberal Democrat hegemony, with its five district and one county councillor all orange. Durham and Winchester also have exclusively Liberal Democrat councillors within the city's limits, but there are other parties in the district (or former district) bearing the city's name. How many other cases are there? I can't think of anywhere exclusively Labour, and it seems unlikely that any exist (Labour do best in larger cities and these tend to have a lot of councillors - so more possible seats for the opposition). The Lib Dems have all the seats in Chelmsford city
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Apr 15, 2020 20:32:54 GMT
Several other cities seem to have all of their councillors from the same party. Wells has a Liberal Democrat hegemony, with its five district and one county councillor all orange. Durham and Winchester also have exclusively Liberal Democrat councillors within the city's limits, but there are other parties in the district (or former district) bearing the city's name. How many other cases are there? I can't think of anywhere exclusively Labour, and it seems unlikely that any exist (Labour do best in larger cities and these tend to have a lot of councillors - so more possible seats for the opposition). Gateshead within the town/city itself? I'm afraid my home town hasn't yet managed city status, and anyway Low Fell is safely Lib Dem (and Dunston Hill and Pelaw both have Lib Dems too, though they're on the fringes of town).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2020 20:41:47 GMT
Ynys Mon is another seat the Conservatives won in 2019 where they have no Councillors.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,523
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 15, 2020 20:45:39 GMT
The County Council Division of Chelmsford Central appears to be held by a Conservative.
The correct title for the head of state of Belgium is the King of the Belgians. And St Asaph is of course a city.
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Apr 15, 2020 21:20:26 GMT
The correct title for the head of state of Belgium is the King of the Belgians. And St Asaph is of course a city. And of course I am neither, nor is St. Asaph a city; it certainly shouldn't be considered one, far too small. For the sake of consistency the term "city" really should be a purely technical one, i.e. a settlement with a population above a certain threshold (say, 75,000-100,000), and not because it happens have a certain ecclesiastical structure within its boundaries and/or because some other nebulous criteria (bloody Royal Prerogative...); so of course that would mean that places such as Bournemouth, Luton, and Milton Keynes would count as cities, but the likes of Wells, Lichfield and Ely would not. By the way, yes, I do indeed plan to die on this hill.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,523
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 15, 2020 21:22:58 GMT
Hey, Wells is definitely a city too; the university city of Bangor even moreso! Population thresholds be damned.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,199
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 16, 2020 9:35:15 GMT
The correct title for the head of state of Belgium is the King of the Belgians. And St Asaph is of course a city. And of course I am neither, nor is St. Asaph a city; it certainly shouldn't be considered one, far too small. For the sake of consistency the term "city" really should be a purely technical one, i.e. a settlement with a population above a certain threshold (say, 75,000-100,000), and not because it happens have a certain ecclesiastical structure within its boundaries and/or because some other nebulous criteria (bloody Royal Prerogative...); so of course that would mean that places such as Bournemouth, Luton, and Milton Keynes would count as cities, but the likes of Wells, Lichfield and Ely would not. By the way, yes, I do indeed plan to die on this hill. City status in the UK is not tied to population, and never has been, though most cities are sizeable places. Nor is it tied to the possession of an Anglican cathedral, though again many cities have one. If you have a charter saying you are a city (or have been so recognised since Time Immemorial), then you are a city. This applies as much to Birmingham as to Wells, to Belfast as much as Armagh, to Cardiff as much as St Davids. What you're suggesting is more akin to the American way of defining a city. It's too rigid, I'm afraid*. What we have ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing.
* And also runs the risk that cities would lose their status though population decline for random reasons, which I'm sure is not what you want.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,635
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 16, 2020 10:02:23 GMT
Labour of course had all the seats in Manchester (by any standards a sizeable city) for a few years recently. They haven't been far off in Leicester either.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,668
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 16, 2020 11:14:46 GMT
City status in the UK is not tied to population, and never has been, though most cities are sizeable places. Nor is it tied to the possession of an Anglican cathedral, though again many cities have one. If you have a charter saying you are a city (or have been so recognised since Time Immemorial), then you are a city. This applies as much to Birmingham as to Wells, to Belfast as much as Armagh, to Cardiff as much as St Davids. What you're suggesting is more akin to the American way of defining a city. It's too rigid, I'm afraid*. What we have ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. * And also runs the risk that cities would lose their status though population decline for random reasons, which I'm sure is not what you want.
In many US states, the definition of "city" appears to be "is not run directly by the county", so you get the likes of City of Flyspeck Arizona, pop. 5 sort of thing.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,199
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 16, 2020 11:49:35 GMT
City status in the UK is not tied to population, and never has been, though most cities are sizeable places. Nor is it tied to the possession of an Anglican cathedral, though again many cities have one. If you have a charter saying you are a city (or have been so recognised since Time Immemorial), then you are a city. This applies as much to Birmingham as to Wells, to Belfast as much as Armagh, to Cardiff as much as St Davids. What you're suggesting is more akin to the American way of defining a city. It's too rigid, I'm afraid*. What we have ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. * And also runs the risk that cities would lose their status though population decline for random reasons, which I'm sure is not what you want.
In many US states, the definition of "city" appears to be "is not run directly by the county", so you get the likes of City of Flyspeck Arizona, pop. 5 sort of thing. Yes, well that takes it to extremes.
Of course, it *is* possible to lose city status in the UK - just ask Rochester, whose outgoing council forgot to set up a body of charter trustees when they merged with Chatham and Gillingham to become the single Medway unitary authority. It seems they only found out about the loss after the event when they were not included on an official list of cities, and asked why.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 16, 2020 11:54:10 GMT
It was worse than that - on hearing that either a parish level authority or Charter Trustees would have to charge a (tiny) Council Tax precept, the Rochester councillors baulked and decided they would manage without them rather than be accused of increasing taxes. They didn't realise that without any institution to inherit the City Status it would cease to exist. There's a campaign to try to get it back: twitter.com/rochesteruponme
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Apr 16, 2020 15:54:23 GMT
And of course I am neither, nor is St. Asaph a city; it certainly shouldn't be considered one, far too small. For the sake of consistency the term "city" really should be a purely technical one, i.e. a settlement with a population above a certain threshold (say, 75,000-100,000), and not because it happens have a certain ecclesiastical structure within its boundaries and/or because some other nebulous criteria (bloody Royal Prerogative...); so of course that would mean that places such as Bournemouth, Luton, and Milton Keynes would count as cities, but the likes of Wells, Lichfield and Ely would not. By the way, yes, I do indeed plan to die on this hill. City status in the UK is not tied to population, and never has been, though most cities are sizeable places. Nor is it tied to the possession of an Anglican cathedral, though again many cities have one. If you have a charter saying you are a city (or have been so recognised since Time Immemorial), then you are a city. This applies as much to Birmingham as to Wells, to Belfast as much as Armagh, to Cardiff as much as St Davids. What you're suggesting is more akin to the American way of defining a city. It's too rigid, I'm afraid*. What we have ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. * And also runs the risk that cities would lose their status though population decline for random reasons, which I'm sure is not what you want. Pah, those charters are not worth the parchment (or what ever medium) they're written on! Disagree on that criteria being too rigid, and even if it was it's at least something consistent. What we have ain't right! It's one thing when larger towns are given city status, especially if they're major regional economic hubs or something of the sort, but when it's given to places that are essentially sleepy hamlets, that is just taking the piss. If something like that happens, too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Apr 16, 2020 16:12:39 GMT
I couldn't care less if somewhere is a city or not.
Maybe that's not a typical view, but we Sheffielders don't for no reason, semi-jokingly, call our city the biggest village in England.
|
|