|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 26, 2018 12:55:43 GMT
The statement "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" is a truism. You can't draw a good logical constituency in South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 13:13:14 GMT
Can I just say "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" I proposed a similar constituency (Meirionydd and Welshpool) on the grounds it would have better transport links than Clwyd South & Montgomeryshire North which the BCE proposed. Why? Oh why! Oh why? Do so many of you trot out this irrelevant tired cliche about good transport links in a constituency? What has it to do with anything at all for anything at all? Do you seriously contend that the constituents need to be able to visit one another or all to gather in one place? Why? This is a political/legal/geographic fiction of a place to afford political representation by voting on occasions and nothing more. It may be a benefit if the electorate are fairly homogeneous thus affording a better chance for the MP to represent the general wishes of them all? Transport links or a river or range of mountains are of zero consequence. Zero!
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,707
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Aug 26, 2018 13:15:40 GMT
I proposed a similar constituency (Meirionydd and Welshpool) on the grounds it would have better transport links than Clwyd South & Montgomeryshire North which the BCE proposed. Why? Oh why! Oh why? Do so many of you trot out this irrelevant tired cliche about good transport links in a constituency? What has it to do with anything at all for anything at all? Do you seriously content that the constituents need to be able to visit one another or all to gather in one place? Why? This is a political/legal/geographic fiction of a place to afford political representation by voting on occasions and nothing more. It may be a benefit if the electorate are fairly homogeneous thus affording a better chance for the MP to represent the general wishes of them all? Transport links or a river or range of mountains are of zero consequence. Zero! If you do not think that constituencies should cover ‘a community’ then what is the rationale for having them at all?
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 26, 2018 13:17:39 GMT
The statement "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" is a truism. You can't draw a good logical constituency in South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire. It would seem far more logical than the alternative of a Montgomeryshire + South Denbighshire combination, the transport links from Meirionnydd to Montgomeryshire are as good as those from Meirionnydd to Caernarfonshire. If anything, the constituency makes more sense than the existing Dwyfor Meirionnydd combination. What exactly is the basis of your opposition to such a constituency?
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 26, 2018 13:20:57 GMT
Can I just say "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" I proposed a similar constituency (Meirionydd and Welshpool) on the grounds it would have better transport links than Clwyd South & Montgomeryshire North which the BCE proposed. The links between Clwyd South and Montgomeryshire are non-existent, Meirionnydd & Montgomeryshire have several A Roads and a train line to connect them.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 13:29:37 GMT
Why? Oh why! Oh why? Do so many of you trot out this irrelevant tired cliche about good transport links in a constituency? What has it to do with anything at all for anything at all? Do you seriously content that the constituents need to be able to visit one another or all to gather in one place? Why? This is a political/legal/geographic fiction of a place to afford political representation by voting on occasions and nothing more. It may be a benefit if the electorate are fairly homogeneous thus affording a better chance for the MP to represent the general wishes of them all? Transport links or a river or range of mountains are of zero consequence. Zero! If you do not think that constituencies should cover ‘a community’ then what is the rationale for having them at all? Ermmmm! I think it is called democracy? Could be wrong? Each man has an individual vote and in a representational system he votes for an MP from a area large or small called a constituency. Some may happen to be a veritable compact community like Barking, Thurrock or Hastings. Others like Bassetlaw contain two towns that hate each others guts and support different parties and stem from entirely different industries. Yet others are so big that they embrace all sorts Hexham, Richmond and Monmouth. I live in Ross, Cromarty and Lochaber which is bigger than a couple of English counties and where most of us have never visited at least half of it and where largely there is no public transport at all to anywhere. But oddly here we have identity of interests that may well be closer man-for-man than in a Chelsea or a Battersea? Constituencies are a vehicle for a greater democratic good and not some airy-fairy communatarian extension and transport routes are of zero consequence because there is no need to travel within it for its own sake for any purpose at all.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,707
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Aug 26, 2018 13:37:36 GMT
If you do not think that constituencies should cover ‘a community’ then what is the rationale for having them at all? Ermmmm! I think it is called democracy? Could be wrong? Each man has an individual vote and in a representational system he votes for an MP from a area large or small called a constituency. Some may happen to be a veritable compact community like Barking, Thurrock or Hastings. Others like Bassetlaw contain two towns that hate each others guts and support different parties and stem from entirely different industries. Yet others are so big that they embrace all sorts Hexham, Richmond and Monmouth. I live in Ross, Cromarty and Lochaber which is bigger than a couple of English counties and where most of us have never visited at least half of it and where largely there is no public transport at all to anywhere. But oddly here we have identity of interests that may well be closer man-for-man than in a Chelsea or a Battersea? Constituencies are a vehicle for a greater democratic good and not some airy-fairy communatarian extension and transport routes are of zero consequence because there is no need to travel within it for its own sake for any purpose at all. A democratic system does not require constituencies. See, for example, the Netherlands or Israel. What you seem to say later about Ross etc. indicates that you do believe that community links are important. You seem to overlook that people talk about transport links within constituencies as they often create some kind of community, not because people are travelling all around an area. Given that Denbighshire+Montgomeryshire and Gwynedd+Montgomeryshire both have poor community links in other ways, how would you suggest deciding which combination is better, without using transport links?
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 26, 2018 13:41:46 GMT
Ermmmm! I think it is called democracy? Could be wrong? Each man has an individual vote and in a representational system he votes for an MP from a area large or small called a constituency. Some may happen to be a veritable compact community like Barking, Thurrock or Hastings. Others like Bassetlaw contain two towns that hate each others guts and support different parties and stem from entirely different industries. Yet others are so big that they embrace all sorts Hexham, Richmond and Monmouth. I live in Ross, Cromarty and Lochaber which is bigger than a couple of English counties and where most of us have never visited at least half of it and where largely there is no public transport at all to anywhere. But oddly here we have identity of interests that may well be closer man-for-man than in a Chelsea or a Battersea? Constituencies are a vehicle for a greater democratic good and not some airy-fairy communatarian extension and transport routes are of zero consequence because there is no need to travel within it for its own sake for any purpose at all. A democratic system does not require constituencies. See, for example, the Netherlands or Israel. What you seem to say later about Ross etc. indicates that you do believe that community links are important. You seem to overlook that people talk about transport links within constituencies as they often create some kind of community, not because people are travelling all around an area. Given that Denbighshire+Montgomeryshire and Gwynedd+Montgomeryshire both have poor community links in other ways, how would you suggest deciding which combination is better, without using transport links? One must also think of the poor candidates and activists, particularly those who have little chance of winning but will still dutifully traipse round the constituency to fight their doomed campaign. The other option would be to cross the Menai strait to create the following constituencies: 1. Anglesey & Bangor 2. Dwyfor Meirionnydd Nant Conwy 3. Montgomeryshire
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 13:53:09 GMT
I mentioned Ross because I live here and have experience. It happens to be an example of a constituency that is vast but by chance not design is quite homogeneous as to the people, whereas a Battersea or Kensington whilst very much smaller, connected and apparently cohesive and community based are far more diverse and disconnected as people. I do not believe that community links are important to voting.
The deciding factor in drawing up the constituency must always be an over-riding fairness as to equality of electorate size above all else squared. Then common sense as to what fits together as an area and in the context of reasonable areas for the others in contiguity with it.
I don't think the average elector cares if other electors he does not know and will never meet live on the other side of the Thames. Pennines, or Lochcarron, but he does mind if their vote is worth more than his because their constituency has only half as many electors. If you told him your concerns about the lack of good transport links from one part of the constituency to another, he is likely to give you a funny look and consolidate his already embedded views that political wonks are odd and a bit mad.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 26, 2018 13:55:51 GMT
I mentioned Ross because I live here and have experience. It happens to be an example of a constituency that is vast but by chance not design is quite homogeneous as to the people, whereas a Battersea or Kensington whilst very much smaller, connected and apparently cohesive and community based are far more diverse and disconnected as people. I do not believe that community links are important to voting. The deciding factor in drawing up the constituency must always be an over-riding fairness as to equality of electorate size above all else squared. Then common sense as to what fits together as an area and in the context of reasonable areas for the others in contiguity with it. I don't think the average elector cares if other electors he does not know and will never meet live on the other side of the Thames. Pennines, or Lochcarron, but he does mind if their vote is worth more than his because their constituency has only half as many electors. If you told him your concerns about the lack of good transport links from one part of the constituency to another, he is likely to give you a funny look and consolidate his already embedded views that political wonks are odd and a bit mad. I would suggest one should follow the Canadian principle where a few smaller constituencies are allowed so long as there are no significantly oversized constituencies at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 13:56:26 GMT
A democratic system does not require constituencies. See, for example, the Netherlands or Israel. What you seem to say later about Ross etc. indicates that you do believe that community links are important. You seem to overlook that people talk about transport links within constituencies as they often create some kind of community, not because people are travelling all around an area. Given that Denbighshire+Montgomeryshire and Gwynedd+Montgomeryshire both have poor community links in other ways, how would you suggest deciding which combination is better, without using transport links? One must also think of the poor candidates and activists, particularly those who have little chance of winning but will still dutifully traipse round the constituency to fight their doomed campaign. The other option would be to cross the Menai strait to create the following constituencies: 1. Anglesey & Bangor 2. Dwyfor Meirionnydd Nant Conwy 3. Montgomeryshire No. The drawing up of the constituency should give no account at all to the utter triviality of the logistics faced by the candidate and party workers every few years.......None at all. Try representing Ross and Cromarty or Orkney and Shetland and then get some perspective into your thinking!!!
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 13:57:40 GMT
I mentioned Ross because I live here and have experience. It happens to be an example of a constituency that is vast but by chance not design is quite homogeneous as to the people, whereas a Battersea or Kensington whilst very much smaller, connected and apparently cohesive and community based are far more diverse and disconnected as people. I do not believe that community links are important to voting. The deciding factor in drawing up the constituency must always be an over-riding fairness as to equality of electorate size above all else squared. Then common sense as to what fits together as an area and in the context of reasonable areas for the others in contiguity with it. I don't think the average elector cares if other electors he does not know and will never meet live on the other side of the Thames. Pennines, or Lochcarron, but he does mind if their vote is worth more than his because their constituency has only half as many electors. If you told him your concerns about the lack of good transport links from one part of the constituency to another, he is likely to give you a funny look and consolidate his already embedded views that political wonks are odd and a bit mad. I would suggest one should follow the Canadian principle where a few smaller constituencies are allowed so long as there are no significantly oversized constituencies at the same time. No. Absolutely and implacably opposed to that.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 26, 2018 14:01:11 GMT
I would suggest one should follow the Canadian principle where a few smaller constituencies are allowed so long as there are no significantly oversized constituencies at the same time. No. Absolutely and implacably opposed to that. How on earth should one manage the Isle of Wight, the Western Isles or Orkney & Shetland under such rigidity?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 14:07:41 GMT
No. Absolutely and implacably opposed to that. How on earth should one manage the Isle of Wight, the Western Isles or Orkney & Shetland under such rigidity? I see it as a legal need for fairness and equal electorates. I would either place Orkney with Caithness and Shetland with say Aberdeen Central Or Orkney & Shetland with Western Isles and Skye. Then combine IOW with Hampshire and divide north south or east west.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,707
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Aug 26, 2018 14:09:49 GMT
I mentioned Ross because I live here and have experience. It happens to be an example of a constituency that is vast but by chance not design is quite homogeneous as to the people, whereas a Battersea or Kensington whilst very much smaller, connected and apparently cohesive and community based are far more diverse and disconnected as people. I do not believe that community links are important to voting. The deciding factor in drawing up the constituency must always be an over-riding fairness as to equality of electorate size above all else squared. Then common sense as to what fits together as an area and in the context of reasonable areas for the others in contiguity with it. I don't think the average elector cares if other electors he does not know and will never meet live on the other side of the Thames. Pennines, or Lochcarron, but he does mind if their vote is worth more than his because their constituency has only half as many electors. If you told him your concerns about the lack of good transport links from one part of the constituency to another, he is likely to give you a funny look and consolidate his already embedded views that political wonks are odd and a bit mad. Then we are back to the point that there is no point in having constituencies. With this thinking, the only logical electoral system is some sort of national list PR.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 14:14:40 GMT
I mentioned Ross because I live here and have experience. It happens to be an example of a constituency that is vast but by chance not design is quite homogeneous as to the people, whereas a Battersea or Kensington whilst very much smaller, connected and apparently cohesive and community based are far more diverse and disconnected as people. I do not believe that community links are important to voting. The deciding factor in drawing up the constituency must always be an over-riding fairness as to equality of electorate size above all else squared. Then common sense as to what fits together as an area and in the context of reasonable areas for the others in contiguity with it. I don't think the average elector cares if other electors he does not know and will never meet live on the other side of the Thames. Pennines, or Lochcarron, but he does mind if their vote is worth more than his because their constituency has only half as many electors. If you told him your concerns about the lack of good transport links from one part of the constituency to another, he is likely to give you a funny look and consolidate his already embedded views that political wonks are odd and a bit mad. Then we are back to the point that there is no point in having constituencies. With this thinking, the only logical electoral system is some sort of national list PR. No it isn't and we just completely disagree. That's fine but I no longer wish to argue so leave this thread on that point.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 26, 2018 14:37:57 GMT
Each man has an individual vote and in a representational system he votes for an MP from a area large or small called a constituency. Some may happen to be a veritable compact community like Barking, Thurrock or Hastings. Others like Bassetlaw contain two towns that hate each others guts and support different parties and stem from entirely different industries. ... A democratic system does not require constituencies. See, for example, the Netherlands or Israel. And constituencies do not need to be geographical. Does Labour still have the three-way system? When Labour party members vote for a party leader they are members of the "membership" constituency. Many many years ago I was a voting member of the "Young LibDems" constituency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 15:42:48 GMT
I proposed a similar constituency (Meirionydd and Welshpool) on the grounds it would have better transport links than Clwyd South & Montgomeryshire North which the BCE proposed. Why? Oh why! Oh why? Do so many of you trot out this irrelevant tired cliche about good transport links in a constituency? What has it to do with anything at all for anything at all? Do you seriously content that the constituents need to be able to visit one another or all to gather in one place? Why? This is a political/legal/geographic fiction of a place to afford political representation by voting on occasions and nothing more. It may be a benefit if the electorate are fairly homogeneous thus affording a better chance for the MP to represent the general wishes of them all? Transport links or a river or range of mountains are of zero consequence. Zero! Nice rant. Utterly baseless. Where possible a constituency must have good transport links. How can an area be united into a single Parliamentary seat if there's hardly any connection between the component parts? I know things are different in the remote areas of both Scotland and Wales. In England, however, seats must be created with the transport connections in mind. If there's no direct road, think twice about creating a parliamentary direct link!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 15:48:23 GMT
One must also think of the poor candidates and activists, particularly those who have little chance of winning but will still dutifully traipse round the constituency to fight their doomed campaign. The other option would be to cross the Menai strait to create the following constituencies: 1. Anglesey & Bangor 2. Dwyfor Meirionnydd Nant Conwy 3. Montgomeryshire No. The drawing up of the constituency should give no account at all to the utter triviality of the logistics faced by the candidate and party workers every few years.......None at all. Try representing Ross and Cromarty or Orkney and Shetland and then get some perspective into your thinking!!! Nice rant. Still wrong. If a seat is drawn up with no regards to the transport links, the continuity links, the natural relationship between neighbours, then the voter would be right to ask, *Why have we been put in with them?!* Party activists should be confident that they are working in a seat, not a federation of near by areas.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 26, 2018 15:51:30 GMT
Why? Oh why! Oh why? Do so many of you trot out this irrelevant tired cliche about good transport links in a constituency? What has it to do with anything at all for anything at all? Do you seriously content that the constituents need to be able to visit one another or all to gather in one place? Why? This is a political/legal/geographic fiction of a place to afford political representation by voting on occasions and nothing more. It may be a benefit if the electorate are fairly homogeneous thus affording a better chance for the MP to represent the general wishes of them all? Transport links or a river or range of mountains are of zero consequence. Zero! Nice rant. Utterly baseless. Where possible a constituency must have good transport links. How can an area be united into a single Parliamentary seat if there's hardly any connection between the component parts? I know things are different in the remote areas of both Scotland and Wales. In England, however, seats must be created with the transport connections in mind. If there's no direct road, think twice about creating a parliamentary direct link! It was not a rant but a positional statement. You and others have made no case at all for the good communications demand. A voter needs to know he has a vote and that it is equal in value to all other votes cast anywhere. In essence that is all. He does not need to know the bounds of the constituency or how to get to any of it. He does not need to know who any of the other electors are or where they live. This is all a great nonsense. I did say earlier I had stopped and I shall now do so in respect of all posters.
|
|