Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 11, 2018 11:44:08 GMT
One of the worst ones there is West Bromwich West which refers to the western part of the county borough of West Bromwich as it was for a short period over 40 years ago. Yes, it's the 'East' seat that contains West Bromwich itself. The two seats would more sensibly be called 'West Bromwich' and 'Wednesbury' - the latter has history as a constituency name, having been first used in 1868. Another bizarrely named seat was 'Waterloo', which existed 1918 - 1950. One might imagine that it would encompass the Waterloo area of central London, and I see that the compiler of a Wikipedia article has indeed made this not unreasonable assumption and included it in a list of London seats during this period. But in fact it was in Lancashire, near Liverpool. From 1950 virtually the same seat, with only very small amendments, was called 'Crosby', which makes a lot more sense. Here's the article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies_(1918–45)_by_regionThe error means that London is listed as having 63 MPs and Lancashire 65 (66 after 1945). It should be 62 and 66 (67 after 1945). I'd like to correct the article but it would involve adjusting the tables and unfortunately I'm not technically up to the task. Only Londoncentric people think that the name of Waterloo constituency is bizarre.  Funnily enough I'll be going through Waterloo (the place) and travelling from Waterloo (the station) today... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 11, 2018 12:57:48 GMT
One of the worst ones there is West Bromwich West which refers to the western part of the county borough of West Bromwich as it was for a short period over 40 years ago. Yes, it's the 'East' seat that contains West Bromwich itself. The two seats would more sensibly be called 'West Bromwich' and 'Wednesbury' - the latter has history as a constituency name, having been first used in 1868. Another bizarrely named seat was 'Waterloo', which existed 1918 - 1950. One might imagine that it would encompass the Waterloo area of central London, and I see that the compiler of a Wikipedia article has indeed made this not unreasonable assumption and included it in a list of London seats during this period. But in fact it was in Lancashire, near Liverpool. From 1950 virtually the same seat, with only very small amendments, was called 'Crosby', which makes a lot more sense. Here's the article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies_(1918–45)_by_regionThe error means that London is listed as having 63 MPs and Lancashire 65 (66 after 1945). It should be 62 and 66 (67 after 1945). I'd like to correct the article but it would involve adjusting the tables and unfortunately I'm not technically up to the task. The seat doesn't seem to appear in the article at all now either in London or in Lancashire but I would certainly dispute your description of this as 'not unreasonable'. Indeed it is entirely unreasonable to make any assumptions in place of hard facts. Somebody who neither knows the facts nor can be bothered to check them has no business being involved in the compilation of an encyclopedia |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 11, 2018 13:43:30 GMT
Yes, it's the 'East' seat that contains West Bromwich itself. The two seats would more sensibly be called 'West Bromwich' and 'Wednesbury' - the latter has history as a constituency name, having been first used in 1868. Another bizarrely named seat was 'Waterloo', which existed 1918 - 1950. One might imagine that it would encompass the Waterloo area of central London, and I see that the compiler of a Wikipedia article has indeed made this not unreasonable assumption and included it in a list of London seats during this period. But in fact it was in Lancashire, near Liverpool. From 1950 virtually the same seat, with only very small amendments, was called 'Crosby', which makes a lot more sense. Here's the article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies_(1918–45)_by_regionThe error means that London is listed as having 63 MPs and Lancashire 65 (66 after 1945). It should be 62 and 66 (67 after 1945). I'd like to correct the article but it would involve adjusting the tables and unfortunately I'm not technically up to the task. The seat doesn't seem to appear in the article at all now either in London or in Lancashire but I would certainly dispute your description of this as 'not unreasonable'. Indeed it is entirely unreasonable to make any assumptions in place of hard facts. Somebody who neither knows the facts nor can be bothered to check them has no business being involved in the compilation of an encyclopedia Wow, you're right. It was still there when I posted because I clicked the link and it duly sent me to the Lancs seat. Apparently the article was edited at 1018 this morning, about an hour after my post. Unfortunately it still gives the London total as 63 and as you say, the constituency, having been erased from London, has failed to turn up in Lancashire. Still, we can't have everything. I plead guilty to Khunanup's charge of londiniocentrism. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,771
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Mar 11, 2018 21:00:33 GMT
Yes, it's the 'East' seat that contains West Bromwich itself. The two seats would more sensibly be called 'West Bromwich' and 'Wednesbury' - the latter has history as a constituency name, having been first used in 1868. Another bizarrely named seat was 'Waterloo', which existed 1918 - 1950. One might imagine that it would encompass the Waterloo area of central London, and I see that the compiler of a Wikipedia article has indeed made this not unreasonable assumption and included it in a list of London seats during this period. But in fact it was in Lancashire, near Liverpool. From 1950 virtually the same seat, with only very small amendments, was called 'Crosby', which makes a lot more sense. Here's the article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies_(1918–45)_by_regionThe error means that London is listed as having 63 MPs and Lancashire 65 (66 after 1945). It should be 62 and 66 (67 after 1945). I'd like to correct the article but it would involve adjusting the tables and unfortunately I'm not technically up to the task. Only Londoncentric people think that the name of Waterloo constituency is bizarre. Funnily enough I'll be going through Waterloo (the place) and travelling from Waterloo (the station) today... I'm happy with Waterloo being on Merseyside, my local club has played Waterloo RFC many times. I don't know where in SW London near Waterloo Station you'd find room for a rugby pitch. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Mar 11, 2018 21:17:33 GMT
About a third of the Hazel Grove area is in the Stepping Hill ward and therefore the Cheadle constituency. The situation was more like 40% in the 1983-2010 boundaries.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 11, 2018 21:25:32 GMT
Before I got to point where I knew where most constituencies were "The Cotswolds" did throw me on a number of occasions (as I thought the Cotswolds were in Southern Warwickshire and Northern Oxfordshire)
|
|
jluk234
Conservative
Next May Make Swinney Pay!
Posts: 431
|
Post by jluk234 on Mar 11, 2018 21:32:34 GMT
Only Londoncentric people think that the name of Waterloo constituency is bizarre. Funnily enough I'll be going through Waterloo (the place) and travelling from Waterloo (the station) today... I'm happy with Waterloo being on Merseyside, my local club has played Waterloo RFC many times. I don't know where in SW London near Waterloo Station you'd find room for a rugby pitch. Twickenham? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 11, 2018 22:31:08 GMT
Eye wasn't on anyone's face. Also the largest town in the old Eye constituency (covering the present-day Mid Suffolk district and a few villages just outside it) was Stowmarket-Eye was a tiny town given a town charter in error. The error was not spotted for six centuries after the charter had been first granted, and it retained its municipal borough status until 1974!
There was a Stowmarket constituency from 1885-1918; the Eye constituency should have been named Stowmarket all along.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 11, 2018 23:42:27 GMT
Eye wasn't on anyone's face. Also the largest town in the old Eye constituency (covering the present-day Mid Suffolk district and a few villages just outside it) was Stowmarket-Eye was a tiny town given a town charter in error. The error was not spotted for six centuries after the charter had been first granted, and it retained its municipal borough status until 1974!
There was a Stowmarket constituency from 1885-1918; the Eye constituency should have been named Stowmarket all along.
Yes, but that would have been no fun! |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 12, 2018 1:59:30 GMT
One of my crazy fantasy ideas is to have constituencies whose electorates are equalised to the closest possible extent by making each constituency a collection of the most suitable combination of wards, regardless of where those wards are or whether they are neighbouring, contiguous, adjoining, far-flung, or in a completely different borough or county.
A variation on this would be to have each constituency built up in alphabetical order of the roads which make it up: the first constituency would be made of all the Abbey Roads, Abbott Roads, Aberdeen Roads etc., and the last would be everywhere that begins with Z (and a few Y-names if they are needed to make up the numbers). There would obviously be a few constituencies called High Street or Station Road; they could be split up on a geographical basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Mar 12, 2018 2:23:27 GMT
One of my crazy fantasy ideas is to have constituencies whose electorates are equalised to the closest possible extent by making each constituency a collection of the most suitable combination of wards, regardless of where those wards are or whether they are neighbouring, contiguous, adjoining, far-flung, or in a completely different borough or county. A variation on this would be to have each constituency built up in alphabetical order of the roads which make it up: the first constituency would be made of all the Abbey Roads, Abbott Roads, Aberdeen Roads etc., and the last would be everywhere that begins with Z (and a few Y-names if they are needed to make up the numbers). There would obviously be a few constituencies called High Street or Station Road; they could be split up on a geographical basis. According to this site, there are around 900,000 streets in England, Scotland and Wales, and only 2,516 named "High Street" - possibly two constituencies, depending on the size of your Parliament and how many people live on each street. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,771
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Mar 12, 2018 9:33:04 GMT
I'm happy with Waterloo being on Merseyside, my local club has played Waterloo RFC many times. I don't know where in SW London near Waterloo Station you'd find room for a rugby pitch. Twickenham? I'm heading for Twickenham this Saturday. IIRC it's not actually that close to Waterloo station. Waterloo RFC actually play in Blundellsands, but it's a mere mile from Waterloo itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2018 10:27:09 GMT
The Oval could do it
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 12, 2018 12:23:30 GMT
Kilburn? Isn't that in Lancashire? Plenty of Kilburns around, including the eponimous one that lent its name to Ian Dury's band, which is in London north west of Paddington, though closer to Cricklewood. On Ian Dury's band, I see on Wiki that it was called Kilburn and the High Roads. I'm sure it was actually a singular road, so Kilburn and the High Road, but I'm sure one of our forum experts will correct me. I always assumed the High Road in question was Edgware Road. I'm not an expert, but it wasn't difficult to check that you're wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:49:29 GMT
Same as Bury South which doesn't have any of Bury in it. True although it does cover the south of the borough. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:50:34 GMT
Croydon South. The current seat contains no part of the town of Croydon.
The current Croydon Central was called Croydon South before 1974.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:55:18 GMT
I also object to the current Bristol West and Harrow West seats.
The most western parts of the borough of Harrow are now paired with Hillingdon. I think that the post-2010 'Harrow West' seat should be called Harrow Central.
Equally, Bristol West no longer contains Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym and picked up wards from Bristol East in 2010. That seat should be called Bristol Central.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2018 13:19:54 GMT
Croydon South. The current seat contains no part of the town of Croydon. The current Croydon Central was called Croydon South before 1974. I think people in Waddon will be surprised to discover they aren't part of Croydon |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Mar 12, 2018 13:28:35 GMT
Same as Bury South which doesn't have any of Bury in it. True although it does cover the south of the borough. Prestwich and Radcliffe is a far superior name. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:27:55 GMT
Aberdeen North is misleading as it's really in the centre of Aberdeen (Northern Aberdeen represented as part of Gordon). Yes. Although naming seats 'Central' usually necessitates other seats called 'East' and 'West' or 'North' and 'South'. Although thankfully in Manchester the old names - Blackley, Gorton, Withington, Wythenshawe have been retained. I wouldn't want to rename 'Gordon' to account for the fact it contains parts of northern Aberdeen. |
|
