Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 15:56:18 GMT
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. Again I disagree. Were constituencies drawn up without any ordinary member of the public being able to take part or be aware of the process, there'd be hell to pay. Openness is the key, in how seats are drawn up and how those boundaries finally lie. I note your decision to leave this thread and will leave responses to you at that.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 26, 2018 16:02:55 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.As long as those smaller constituencies have good cause to have significantly lower electorates than average, which generally means geographical considerations. Within the UK this could only reasonably apply to: Powys, Gwynedd, Ceredigion, the Scottish Highlands, Northumberland, and the non-mainland island constituencies (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney & Shetland, the Isle of Wight, and Ynys Mon).
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by WJ on Aug 26, 2018 17:43:29 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. The links between Clwyd South and Montgomeryshire are non-existent, Meirionnydd & Montgomeryshire have several A Roads and a train line to connect them. There are perfectly good links between the two, you just have to go via Oswestry to access them.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,840
|
Post by jamie on Aug 27, 2018 9:24:37 GMT
As long as those smaller constituencies have good cause to have significantly lower electorates than average, which generally means geographical considerations. Within the UK this could only reasonably apply to: Powys, Gwynedd, Ceredigion, the Scottish Highlands, Northumberland, and the non-mainland island constituencies (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney & Shetland, the Isle of Wight, and Ynys Mon). Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Northumberland don't need to be smaller. Powys is borderline. Only really the northern/western Highlands are ridiculously large. Ynys Mon can easily be combined with Bangor. If the Isle of Wight wants the privilege of not sharing a constituency with the mainland then they can have 1.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,525
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 27, 2018 9:31:25 GMT
As long as those smaller constituencies have good cause to have significantly lower electorates than average, which generally means geographical considerations. Within the UK this could only reasonably apply to: Powys, Gwynedd, Ceredigion, the Scottish Highlands, Northumberland, and the non-mainland island constituencies (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney & Shetland, the Isle of Wight, and Ynys Mon). Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Northumberland don't need to be smaller. Powys is borderline. Only really the northern/western Highlands are ridiculously large. Ynys Mon can easily be combined with Bangor. If the Isle of Wight wants the privilege of not sharing a constituency with the mainland then they can have 1. All those things can be argued, but it is far from settled. And surely the IoW will be big enough (electorate wise) for two seats of its own very soon?
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,840
|
Post by jamie on Aug 27, 2018 15:39:28 GMT
All those things can be argued, but it is far from settled. And surely the IoW will be big enough (electorate wise) for two seats of its own very soon? If they're just below the quota i can see the case, but for the present review the Isle of Wight has 105000 electors compared to the average of 150000 for 2 normal constituencies. That's simply too large a difference.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,604
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 27, 2018 15:48:51 GMT
All those things can be argued, but it is far from settled. And surely the IoW will be big enough (electorate wise) for two seats of its own very soon? If they're just below the quota i can see the case, but for the present review the Isle of Wight has 105000 electors compared to the average of 150000 for 2 normal constituencies. That's simply too large a difference. They have a choice of one constituency that's 40% over quota or two constituencies that are both 30% under quota. I don't really know which is the best option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 17:10:40 GMT
If they're just below the quota i can see the case, but for the present review the Isle of Wight has 105000 electors compared to the average of 150000 for 2 normal constituencies. That's simply too large a difference. They have a choice of one constituency that's 40% over quota or two constituencies that are both 30% under quota. I don't really know which is the best option. Perhaps they should have 2 where the MPs get 75% of a vote in divisions. Of course, it's not really a reasonable compromise. Although it's sort of how the German Bundesrat works - state governments get votes based partially on their population, and one person can cast all of a states votes; and if more than one delegate is sent by a state government, they must all vote in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 27, 2018 21:34:15 GMT
If they're just below the quota i can see the case, but for the present review the Isle of Wight has 105000 electors compared to the average of 150000 for 2 normal constituencies. That's simply too large a difference. They have a choice of one constituency that's 40% over quota or two constituencies that are both 30% under quota. I don't really know which is the best option. Join it to Hampshire and stop being silly is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 27, 2018 21:50:47 GMT
They have a choice of one constituency that's 40% over quota or two constituencies that are both 30% under quota. I don't really know which is the best option. Join it to Hampshire and stop being silly is the answer. There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 27, 2018 21:57:28 GMT
Join it to Hampshire and stop being silly is the answer. There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two. There is no bridge between Orkney and Shetland. There is no bridge between Harris and North Uist. There is no bridge between the Scillies and Cornwall. Nor between Arran, Cumbrae, Bute and the constituencies of which they form part. Given the range of options for travelling between Vectis and the mainland - three ferry routes I believe - being combined with somewhere on the mainland hardly seems an imposition.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 27, 2018 21:58:50 GMT
Join it to Hampshire and stop being silly is the answer. There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two. Absolute and complete nonsense on stilts. Orkney and Shetland is a constituency of islands and none of them are connected by bridge to one another. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not. Other mainland constituencies have an island not connected by a bridge. Roads, rivers, mountains and a short stretch of water just don't matter. Get over this complete nerk obsession with communications. It is entirely witless.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 27, 2018 22:07:13 GMT
I think carlton43 makes a worthwhile point that community of interest should be more important than geography. I would even go so far as to suggest that places such as Shotton in NE Wales have more affinity with Chester than with the rural areas further south which, in turn, have a greater affinity with the Oswestry area. But imagine the horror of crossing the Welsh - English boundary !!
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 27, 2018 22:10:34 GMT
There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two. There is no bridge between Orkney and Shetland. There is no bridge between Harris and North Uist. There is no bridge between the Scillies and Cornwall. Nor between Arran, Cumbrae, Bute and the constituencies of which they form part. Given the range of options for travelling between Vectis and the mainland - three ferry routes I believe - being combined with somewhere on the mainland hardly seems an imposition. My suggestions would be: East Wight; and Lymington and West Wight.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 27, 2018 22:16:56 GMT
Join it to Hampshire and stop being silly is the answer. There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two. Just checked for tomorrow's ferry timetable. 110 sailings from the mainland to the Isle of Wight. First is at 0245; last is at 2355. Four routes. It's hardly Shetland or Benbecula is it?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 27, 2018 22:23:36 GMT
There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two. Absolute and complete nonsense on stilts. Orkney and Shetland is a constituency of islands and none of them are connected by bridge to one another. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not. Other mainland constituencies have an island not connected by a bridge. Roads, rivers, mountains and a short stretch of water just don't matter. Get over this complete nerk obsession with communications. It is entirely witless. I wouldn't completely disregard the communication issue but the sea is not always the barrier it might appear on the map given a good ferry. Some relatives by marriage lived in Glenelg and it was easier to get to Skye by the ferry than it was to drive out of the peninsula by road. IIRC the ferry didn't run in winter but the road was always closed by snow then anyway.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 27, 2018 22:27:43 GMT
There is no bridge from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth or Southampton any more than there are bridges from Na h-Eilanan an Iar to Skye or Orkney & Shetland to Wick at the tip of the Highlands. Therefore the Isle of Wight must have separate representation to the rest of Hampshire, whether that be in the form of one seat or two. Just checked for tomorrow's ferry timetable. 110 sailings from the mainland to the Isle of Wight. First is at 0245; last is at 2355. Four routes. It's hardly Shetland or Benbecula is it? 23.55 is later than a lot of suburban train services in London!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 22:31:07 GMT
I feel like members of my party suggesting cross-Solent constituencies should be minded that having spoken to members on the Island, the party's fall from competitive to completely irrelevant post-2015 was as much to do with the coalition as it was to do with having a candidate that year with a Southampton address on the ballot paper.
The separation of the Island from the mainland when drawing up constituencies is down to community as much as it is geography. Comparisons to the distance between Orkney and Shetland are all well and good, but separating those two are different in that the resulting discrepancies in electorates would be much greater than that of one or two IoW constituencies. And yet, even then, such constituencies purely to preserve island communities are not out of the question - the Western Isles in the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments, and the separate Orkney and Shetland constituencies for the latter. If such great exceptions in electorate sizes for communities with no road connection are acceptable for those Scottish island groups, why is it so out of the question for some for the Isle of Wight, where the discrepancy in electorate size is much smaller?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,604
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 28, 2018 0:04:18 GMT
... Given the range of options for travelling between Vectis and the mainland - three ferry routes I believe - being combined with somewhere on the mainland hardly seems an imposition. My suggestions would be: East Wight; and Lymington and West Wight. The problem is that most of the population is in central and east Wight, so from a quick look at wards you'd have: East Wight, and Lyminton, West and Central Wight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 4:15:17 GMT
The Isle of Wight is to be split by the (zombie?) review, anyway. Attaching it to Hampshire is a huge no-no.
|
|