bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,396
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 24, 2017 0:25:24 GMT
It’s just that the 1983 boundary changes Named so many seats after local government areas Rather than real places Beeston became Broxtowe, Carlton, Gedling etc. People identify with places not local government areas. Again, agree with this for the most part, both for local and nationwide recognition. For the latter, I think it's important to name after the more well-known population centre(s) regardless of LA, (hence Nottingham West for Broxtowe - they all probably work in Notts and have NG postcodes, 'Beeston' would then anger Stapleford people...) and for the rural ones, stick with county names and compasses rather than strings of unheard of market towns. They shouldn't be afraid to put city names in front of as many areas as possible, even if part of it isn't in the city's LA. When Ed Balls lost I had no idea where Morley or Outwood was, if it had Leeds in the title that would have helped. Nick Clegg though, no problem. Only exception is if the LA name happens to be well known and identified with itself. An amusing example being my very own Bury South which doesn't include Bury itself, but is south of the Bury Council area. Bury itself I'd like to think is reasonably well-known but is actually fully in Bury North. It's tempting to rename South into Prestwich and Radcliffe which may or may not contradict my earlier point, though it is neither Bury or Manchester! The opposite goes for Trafford which is probably more recognisable, nationally and globally, than Stretford and Urmston combined. Should be Old Trafford or Trafford North, even if Trafford technically isn't a town.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2017 15:07:50 GMT
It’s just that the 1983 boundary changes Named so many seats after local government areas Rather than real places Beeston became Broxtowe, Carlton, Gedling etc. People identify with places not local government areas. Again, agree with this for the most part, both for local and nationwide recognition. For the latter, I think it's important to name after the more well-known population centre(s) regardless of LA, (hence Nottingham West for Broxtowe - they all probably work in Notts and have NG postcodes, 'Beeston' would then anger Stapleford people...) and for the rural ones, stick with county names and compasses rather than strings of unheard of market towns. They shouldn't be afraid to put city names in front of as many areas as possible, even if part of it isn't in the city's LA. When Ed Balls lost I had no idea where Morley or Outwood was, if it had Leeds in the title that would have helped. Nick Clegg though, no problem. Only exception is if the LA name happens to be well known and identified with itself. An amusing example being my very own Bury South which doesn't include Bury itself, but is south of the Bury Council area. Bury itself I'd like to think is reasonably well-known but is actually fully in Bury North. It's tempting to rename South into Prestwich and Radcliffe which may or may not contradict my earlier point, though it is neither Bury or Manchester! The opposite goes for Trafford which is probably more recognisable, nationally and globally, than Stretford and Urmston combined. Should be Old Trafford or Trafford North, even if Trafford technically isn't a town. I really don’t agree with ‘Nottingham West’ for a name. Beeston has never been part of the City of Nottingham. Maybe a Nottingham Outer that unites Beeston, Carlton and West Bridgford. But under your proposals Gedling would surely be renamed Nottingham East?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Nov 24, 2017 15:50:24 GMT
I don't see "Nottingham West" flying as a name as long as none of it is actually within the City of Nottingham, even if arguably most of it should be annexed. It's one of those seats there isn't really a good name for; yes, a lot of people aren't going to know where Broxtowe is, but then again a lot of people who think they know where Beeston is probably think it's in Leeds.
Speaking of Leeds, I think Morley people will see Morley as somewhere separate from Leeds in much the same way as Radcliffe is seen as separate from Bury. So I don't have a problem with that name, and indeed Morley is pretty prominently marked on maps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2017 16:32:02 GMT
Also, who wants compass points for rural areas?
Would you rename Witney West Oxfordshire or Banbury North Oxfordshire?
Compass points suggest a lack of imagination.
I certainly wouldn't rename Newbury West Berkshire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2017 16:37:24 GMT
I don't see "Nottingham West" flying as a name as long as none of it is actually within the City of Nottingham, even if arguably most of it should be annexed. It's one of those seats there isn't really a good name for; yes, a lot of people aren't going to know where Broxtowe is, but then again a lot of people who think they know where Beeston is probably think it's in Leeds. Speaking of Leeds, I think Morley people will see Morley as somewhere separate from Leeds in much the same way as Radcliffe is seen as separate from Bury. So I don't have a problem with that name, and indeed Morley is pretty prominently marked on maps. Morley has been used for a while - Morley & Leeds South; Morley & Rothwell. I think Morley & Outwood rolls of the tongue. It's also a well-known seat name because its MP was a high-profile scalp, like Enfield, Southgate.
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Nov 24, 2017 16:59:13 GMT
I don't see "Nottingham West" flying as a name as long as none of it is actually within the City of Nottingham, even if arguably most of it should be annexed. It's one of those seats there isn't really a good name for; yes, a lot of people aren't going to know where Broxtowe is, but then again a lot of people who think they know where Beeston is probably think it's in Leeds. Speaking of Leeds, I think Morley people will see Morley as somewhere separate from Leeds in much the same way as Radcliffe is seen as separate from Bury. So I don't have a problem with that name, and indeed Morley is pretty prominently marked on maps. Beeston in Nottingham and Beeston in Leeds couldn't be more different.. Anyway, I'd agree that Morley feels very separate from Leeds, but Pudsey and Horsforth are certainly Leeds suburbs and feel as such. I know there are plans to put Horsforth in with Leeds NW - makes sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2017 17:57:34 GMT
It's a choice between Beeston and Broxtowe - I don't think Nottingham West would be popular.
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Nov 24, 2017 21:40:48 GMT
London central...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2017 23:18:23 GMT
Cities of London & Westminster will do. Though the old name was more accurate City of London & Westminster South.
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Nov 25, 2017 0:47:16 GMT
Cities of London & Westminster will do. Though the old name was more accurate City of London & Westminster South. It's not realistic but a seat covering roughly the current congestion charge area (crossing both sides of the river). An abomination I know but would be interesting. Easily would've been labour in June but not sure about other years.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 25, 2017 7:08:21 GMT
The congestion zone has over 100,000 voters. It includes from Westminster: Vincent Square; St James; West End; Marylebone High Street; Bryanston & Dorset Square (South of Marylebone Road). From Camden: Bloomsbury; Holborn; Kings Cross. From Islington: Bunhill; Clerkenwell. From Southwark: Cathedrals; Chaucer and small parts of Grange and Riverside. From Lambeth: Bishop's and most of Princes. To get a constituency of the right kind of size you'd need to remove a few wards from the perphery, say the two Marylebone wards (North side of Oxford Street so not exactly peripheral!) and Princes and Chaucer from the South which would give an electorate of around 72k. It's hard to imagine this constituency having voted Conservative at any election since the war actually - 1983 maybe? Alternatively you could restrict it to North of the river and bring back the two Marylebone wards which would have an electorate of 66k. Even that would be a safe Labour seat nowadays but would have been a bit more competitive over the years
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 26, 2017 16:35:22 GMT
With a 2016 electorate of 76,965 this looks like the best way to fir the greatest part of the Congestion Charge zone within a single seat. Absent the wards of Princes and Chaucer and some other small areas in Southwark, Hackney and Tower Hamlets, it's slightly more favourable for the Conservatives than a constituency covering the whole area (which would be grossly oversized) would be. Even so I was surprised how good this constituency would have been for the Conservatives historically, being better than the national average until the 1970s and then a reasonable bellwether until 2010. I had perhaps forgotten how strong the Conservatives were in the Holborn area before 1997. And of course the occasional Lib Dem strength in Finsbury (as well of course as on the South Bank) made for some even more interesting results than I anticipated London Central | Con | | Lab | | LD | | | | | | | | | 2017 | 14855 | 26.9% | 29375 | 53.3% | 8681 | 15.7% | 2015 | 15910 | 32.0% | 20559 | 41.3% | 6209 | 12.5% | 2010 | 15212 | 30.8% | 16851 | 34.1% | 14927 | 30.2% | 2005 | 12053 | 27.7% | 15208 | 34.9% | 12857 | 29.5% | 2001 | 10282 | 25.6% | 17570 | 43.8% | 9623 | 24.0% | 1997 | 11818 | 26.3% | 22433 | 49.8% | 8689 | 19.3% | 1992 | 19177 | 39.2% | 18560 | 37.9% | 10091 | 20.6% | 1987 | 19665 | 39.3% | 17210 | 34.4% | 12775 | 25.6% | 1983 | 19386 | 41.5% | 14089 | 30.1% | 12387 | 26.5% | 1979 | 26989 | 47.8% | 21976 | 38.9% | 5350 | 9.5% | 1974 | 20792 | 38.5% | 24661 | 45.6% | 7806 | 14.4% | 1974 | 25346 | 40.1% | 25572 | 40.5% | 11457 | 18.1% | 1970 | 30717 | 51.9% | 26001 | 43.9% | 2148 | 3.6% | 1966 | 32961 | 46.7% | 33249 | 47.1% | 3223 | 4.6% | 1964 | 38472 | 50.0% | 33687 | 43.8% | 4339 | 5.6% | 1959 | 49354 | 54.6% | 36716 | 40.6% | 4004 | 4.4% | 1955 | 51381 | 55.1% | 41062 | 44.0% | 694 | 0.7% | 1951 | 58986 | 53.1% | 51027 | 46.0% | 968 | 0.9% | 1950 | 53736 | 48.1% | 43652 | 39.1% | 8719 | 7.8% | 1945 | 40877 | 47.5% | 35638 | 41.4% | 4024 | 4.7% |
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,396
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 26, 2017 17:45:50 GMT
It's a choice between Beeston and Broxtowe - I don't think Nottingham West would be popular. The boundary changes partially solve this problem by making it Nottingham South and Beeston. This also has the side-effect of lumping the student vote in one area, making Sourby's seat safer. The remainder, however, is 'Broxtowe and Hucknall' - I guess when there is a collection of similarly sized towns which can't be lumped into a compass area then that is the best you can do. Amber Valley though - sounds like a nice place, but risking pitchforks - East Derbyshire.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 26, 2017 18:32:40 GMT
With a 2016 electorate of 76,965 this looks like the best way to fir the greatest part of the Congestion Charge zone within a single seat. Absent the wards of Princes and Chaucer and some other small areas in Southwark, Hackney and Tower Hamlets, it's slightly more favourable for the Conservatives than a constituency covering the whole area (which would be grossly oversized) would be. Absent isn't a verb.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 26, 2017 18:39:29 GMT
With a 2016 electorate of 76,965 this looks like the best way to fir the greatest part of the Congestion Charge zone within a single seat. Absent the wards of Princes and Chaucer and some other small areas in Southwark, Hackney and Tower Hamlets, it's slightly more favourable for the Conservatives than a constituency covering the whole area (which would be grossly oversized) would be. Absent isn't a verb. Can't you absent yourself from a discussion? (for instance).
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 26, 2017 19:29:53 GMT
Can't you absent yourself from a discussion? (for instance). Yes - please absent yourself from this discussion Jonathan
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Nov 26, 2017 21:23:14 GMT
It's a choice between Beeston and Broxtowe - I don't think Nottingham West would be popular. The boundary changes partially solve this problem by making it Nottingham South and Beeston. This also has the side-effect of lumping the student vote in one area, making Sourby's seat safer. The remainder, however, is 'Broxtowe and Hucknall' - I guess when there is a collection of similarly sized towns which can't be lumped into a compass area then that is the best you can do. Amber Valley though - sounds like a nice place, but risking pitchforks - East Derbyshire. "Amber Valley" is a pretty silly name, yes. A lot of the actual valley of the River Amber is in Bolsover or North East Derbyshire, and the larger towns in the constituency like Alfreton, Ripley and Heanor aren't really on the river; Heanor in particular is nowhere near it. Obviously the constituency name is derived from the district name, but it's far from an obvious name for the district either.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 27, 2017 2:46:07 GMT
Can't you absent yourself from a discussion? (for instance). Whether it is or not, it did not look like Pete was using the word as a verb in the original sentence anyway.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 27, 2017 4:46:28 GMT
Can't you absent yourself from a discussion? (for instance). Whether it is or not, it did not look like Pete was using the word as a verb in the original sentence anyway. And you would use a gerund in that instance (or a conditional). Includ ing these wards gives a total of 72,500 ( If you include these wards...) Exclud ing these wards gives a total of 65,800 ( If you exclude these wards...) but even then, absenting these wards .... (if you absent these wards...) makes no sense.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 27, 2017 6:22:59 GMT
Have you considered the possibility that it might've been an adjective effectively used as a substitute for 'without' and therefore functioning as a preposition in this instance?
|
|