Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 29, 2017 19:06:56 GMT
No that's David Davis' seat.  Has Mid Dorset and North Poole been mentioned yet? And its cognate, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. In both cases the BCE found a town just too big for one constituency so lopped off a bit, but kept the name of the remaining 'most of the town' seat unchanged. See also 'Wyre and Preston North'. Admittedly the Wyre part is not as bad as if they'd called it 'Mid Lancashire'. Brighton Pavilion and Brighton Kemptown should be renamed as Brighton West and Brighton East. Similarly, Southampton Itchen and Southampton Test should be renamed as East and West. (The only good thing about the current names is that it is possible to remember "Test is West".) Similarly, the constituencies in Plymouth should have proper compass-point names instead of the confusing ones they tend to have. Why should we use boring compass points when naming seats. All the seats you mention have existed since 1950 - why mess with them? Names like 'Devonport' and 'Sutton' have been used in Plymouth seats for decades. I admit though I don't know what 'Moor View' reviews to. We shouldn't use compass names for rural seats or large and oddly-shaped cities, but for non-amorphous cities and large towns worth 2-5 seats they are perfectly proper. Moor View refers to the name of a ward. The moor in question is Dartmoor. From almost nowhere in that ward – and from absolutely nowhere else in the seat – is said moor visible. The name is anything but sensible. The constituency ought to be called Plymouth North. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 30, 2017 0:33:19 GMT
Brighton Pavilion and Brighton Kemptown should be renamed as Brighton West and Brighton East. Similarly, Southampton Itchen and Southampton Test should be renamed as East and West. (The only good thing about the current names is that it is possible to remember "Test is West".) Similarly, the constituencies in Plymouth should have proper compass-point names instead of the confusing ones they tend to have. No. Those are all sensible names. Why should we use boring compass points when naming seats. All the seats you mention have existed since 1950 - why mess with them? For the benefit of millions of psephologist and anoraks all over the country who don't have local knowledge and want to know which is which on a map. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 30, 2017 1:25:35 GMT
Ha ha, not quite carlton43 its David Davies seat and it is in Yorkshire East Riding. No! The other one of course. I am very familiar with Howden. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 30, 2017 1:48:01 GMT
...or if they do they must be uncurable trivia nerds. ....Cant think who he means..... ;o) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Oct 30, 2017 13:13:42 GMT
And its cognate, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. In both cases the BCE found a town just too big for one constituency so lopped off a bit, but kept the name of the remaining 'most of the town' seat unchanged. See also 'Wyre and Preston North'. Admittedly the Wyre part is not as bad as if they'd called it 'Mid Lancashire'. To be fair, I don't think that's a bad way in principle of dealing with a situation where the bulk of a town is in one constituency but a bit has been lopped off. I certainly wouldn't want to argue that Ipswich should be renamed as "Ipswich South", for example. However, I would agree that both "Central Suffolk & North Ipswich" and "Mid Dorset & North Poole" are cumbersome and ugly names. (Both break my "no more than three content words" rule.) I don't know what alternatives were considered. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 30, 2017 19:43:46 GMT
See also 'Wyre and Preston North'. Admittedly the Wyre part is not as bad as if they'd called it 'Mid Lancashire'. To be fair, I don't think that's a bad way in principle of dealing with a situation where the bulk of a town is in one constituency but a bit has been lopped off. I certainly wouldn't want to argue that Ipswich should be renamed as "Ipswich South", for example. However, I would agree that both "Central Suffolk & North Ipswich" and "Mid Dorset & North Poole" are cumbersome and ugly names. (Both break my "no more than three content words" rule.) I don't know what alternatives were considered. The Commission had the right idea with their initial proposals for the Poole area, but has reverted to the 'Mid Dorset' name in their revised proposals. How about 'Broadstone and Wimborne' for the Dorset constituency and 'Framlingham and Castle Hill' for the Suffolk seat? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 30, 2017 20:23:04 GMT
The Commission had the right idea with their initial proposals for the Poole area, but has reverted to the 'Mid Dorset' name in their revised proposals. How about 'Broadstone and Wimborne' for the Dorset constituency and 'Framlingham and Castle Hill' for the Suffolk seat? The Suffolk one should be called Eye. That should certainly be the name of a constituency in Suffolk, but is Eye actually in the current Central Suffolk seat? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 30, 2017 21:47:23 GMT
I would be less worried about improving the name of CS&NI than the boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 30, 2017 22:13:37 GMT
The Suffolk one should be called Eye. That should certainly be the name of a constituency in Suffolk, but is Eye actually in the current Central Suffolk seat? Yes it is, as are a considerable number of villages that were in the old Eye seat (but not the town of Stowmarket which is now in the Bury St Edmunds seat, and which was actually the largest part of the Eye constituency). |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 30, 2017 23:40:40 GMT
The Commission had the right idea with their initial proposals for the Poole area, but has reverted to the 'Mid Dorset' name in their revised proposals. How about 'Broadstone and Wimborne' for the Dorset constituency and 'Framlingham and Castle Hill' for the Suffolk seat? The Suffolk one should be called Eye. Aye. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 30, 2017 23:46:29 GMT
To be fair, I don't think that's a bad way in principle of dealing with a situation where the bulk of a town is in one constituency but a bit has been lopped off. I certainly wouldn't want to argue that Ipswich should be renamed as "Ipswich South", for example. However, I would agree that both "Central Suffolk & North Ipswich" and "Mid Dorset & North Poole" are cumbersome and ugly names. (Both break my "no more than three content words" rule.) I don't know what alternatives were considered. The Commission had the right idea with their initial proposals for the Poole area, but has reverted to the 'Mid Dorset' name in their revised proposals. How about 'Broadstone and Wimborne' for the Dorset constituency and 'Framlingham and Castle Hill' for the Suffolk seat? Both very bad ideas indeed and far worse than the poor originals. Most people have no idea of where Wimbourne and Framlingham are and will never have heard of them. I know both well but I am a bit unusual. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 30, 2017 23:54:15 GMT
The Commission had the right idea with their initial proposals for the Poole area, but has reverted to the 'Mid Dorset' name in their revised proposals. How about 'Broadstone and Wimborne' for the Dorset constituency and 'Framlingham and Castle Hill' for the Suffolk seat? Both very bad ideas indeed and far worse than the poor originals. Most people have no idea of where Wimbourne and Framlingham are and will never have heard of them. I know both well but I am a bit unusual. I know you favour single-word names and I understand the appeal of that approach, but if you are now also demanding that this one name is simultaneously the name of a widely known settlement within the seat, then I'm afraid some constituency nomenclature will simply never meet both those criteria to your satisfaction. Oh, and despite that fact that it's near Bournemouth, it's spelt Wim borne without the 'u', as in Wimborne Minster. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 0:09:07 GMT
North Tyneside. Firstly, it contains only one half of the borough. Secondly, it is routinely and wrongly described, by the BBC and others as "Tyneside North", as they think there's a local authority called Tyneside. Should be called "Wallsend". The rule is that the compass point comes after the place in a borough constituency, and before if it's a county constituency. Therefore it's North Dorset (county constituency), North Milton Keynes (county constituency) but Milton Keynes South (borough constituency), Sefton Central (borough constituency) and therefore by the same token Tyneside North because it too is a borough constituency. The exception is if a place is usually referred to as a distinct area in the opposite manner (e.g. West Ham, East Kilbride or, perhaps more controversially, South Ruislip - some would argue whether South Ruislip is really distinct from the rest of Ruislip, and indeed they have the same postcode. North Tyneside is always known as North Tyneside. It means something different to the northern half of Tyneside. Calling the parliamentary seat Tyneside North is only marginally more sensible than calling the West Ham seat Ham West. Tyneside by itself would refer to not only North and South Tyneside, but also Gateshead and Newcastle. As such, Tyneside North would an excessively broad name for the seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 31, 2017 8:41:40 GMT
Both very bad ideas indeed and far worse than the poor originals. Most people have no idea of where Wimbourne and Framlingham are and will never have heard of them. I know both well but I am a bit unusual. The only reason I have heard of Framlingham is that it's the name Michael Lord chose to avoid becoming Lord Lord on his elevation to the peerage. You've missed a treat, it's lovely. (I'm afraid I don't have carlton43 's knowledge of UK constituencies, but I do have a working knowledge of English castles circa The Wars of the Roses. I think Framingham belonged to the de la Poles.) EDIT: wrong! It was the Howards. Since they were Earls of Norfolk, whereas the Poles were Earls of Suffolk, and it is in Suffolk, I should of course have realised that normal English illogic decrees that it would belong to the former. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 8:54:01 GMT
Both very bad ideas indeed and far worse than the poor originals. Most people have no idea of where Wimbourne and Framlingham are and will never have heard of them. I know both well but I am a bit unusual. The only reason I have heard of Framlingham is that it's the name Michael Lord chose to avoid becoming Lord Lord on his elevation to the peerage. Framlingham Castle was used by Mary Tudor as the base from which she rallied her supporters after the proclamation of Lady Jane Grey as Queen. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 31, 2017 11:05:02 GMT
The only reason I have heard of Framlingham is that it's the name Michael Lord chose to avoid becoming Lord Lord on his elevation to the peerage. You've missed a treat, it's lovely. (I'm afraid I don't have carlton43 's knowledge of UK constituencies, but I do have a working knowledge of English castles circa The Wars of the Roses. I think Framingham belonged to the de la Poles.) EDIT: wrong! It was the Howards. Since they were Earls of Norfolk, whereas the Poles were Earls of Suffolk, and it is in Suffolk, I should of course have realised that normal English illogic decrees that it would belong to the former. Used to be a nice Trust House for a weekend away with congenial companion, and good church, interesting closed branch line and the castle at the top of the hill. Lovely countryside. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Oct 31, 2017 20:05:03 GMT
The Commission had the right idea with their initial proposals for the Poole area, but has reverted to the 'Mid Dorset' name in their revised proposals. How about 'Broadstone and Wimborne' for the Dorset constituency and 'Framlingham and Castle Hill' for the Suffolk seat? Both very bad ideas indeed and far worse than the poor originals. Most people have no idea of where Wimbourne and Framlingham are and will never have heard of them. I know both well but I am a bit unusual. I also hate it when they lop off a bit of a town and leave the name of the town unchanged, but it's probably the least worst solution, the 1983-1997 Salford East being the alternative, even though it contains most of the city. Regarding Wimborne and Framlingham, there we're down to the question of whether the name should be nationally recognisable or have local resonance? Is it better to have Stoke on Trent north, central and south or Burslem&Tunstall, Stoke&Hanley, Fenton&Longton? Roughly the consensus here seems to be 1) No more than 2 places in a constituency name 2) No more than one compass point 3) Naming after recognisable settlements, rather than obscure local government districts. Looking abroad, there are problems whatever approach is used. The Irish commission decided after 1980 that they would only use city/county compass point, so when they created a new seat between Dublin West and Dublin South West they gave it the woefully bad title of Dublin Mid-West when Clondalkin and Lucan would have fitted it perfectly. The German commission can't seem to make up its mind whether to use numbers (Köln I, II and III) compass points (München Nord, Süd, Ost, West/Mitte) or city districts (Berlin Charlottenburg–Wilmersdorf etc.) The Americans, of course, just go for numbers which means no one has a clue without looking it up what areas are covered while the Aussies go for naming after prominent personalities, not sure there'd be consensus on renaming Grantham and Stamford "Thatcher." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 10:19:05 GMT
I know there is already a huge amount of material on this so I'll just summarise my thoughts - Constituencies should have short names that focus on the main focal points, even if there is more than one local government district, although conciseness shouldn't be the main issue (particularly noticeable in Scotland): - Shrewsbury and Atcham is better as just Shrewsbury.
- Selby and Ainsty is another one; I'm still not entirely sure where Ainsty is.
If a local government district shares its name with the main settlement, the constituency names should be based on the settlement. - Bury North and Bury South is not something I like - I would prefer Bury, and Prestwich and Whitefield. I don't think that has any real effect on the way people think about their constituency.
- North West Durham and North Durham could be renamed.
- Paisley and Renfrewshire North and South - speaks for itself. I'd even prefer Renfrewshire North and Renfrewshire South.
Local government districts that are used in names (providing it isn't the name of a settlement itself,) should only be used reasonably and when the vast majority of the district is the constituency (e.g. Broxbourne or Cannock Chase.) Seats should also use the names of other types of area if they actually define the seat (e.g. Derbyshire Dales) - Wyre and Preston North is a terrible name, partly because of the oddity that is seat itself. Something like Preston North and Garstang would be more preferable to me, but there is no easy solution.
- Some seats, such as Arundel and South Downs don't contain all of the South Downs, but it is obvious what they refer to and should remain the same.
Cities with more than two constituencies should use districts/suburbs in their names rather than meaningless compass directions except the Central seats. Exceptions could include Leicester and Stoke. - For Glasgow: Pollok (SW), Cathcart (S), Shettleston (E), Anniesland (NW), Maryhill (N), Springburn (NE) and Central.
- Even though such seats cover more than one local government district, seats like Blackley and Broughton could be better as Manchester Cheetham.
- Seats like Plymouth Moor View should however revert to Plymouth North.
Compass directions for counties are fine for large areas. - I would however oppose plans for seats like Lanarkshire South East, when Clydesdale would be perfect.
- Seats like Hampshire North West could be Andover, but ones such as North Devon make sense.
Local authority names, such as Waveney and Wyre Forest should be changed. Most of all: Seats with reasonable enough names shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. - Arundel and South Downs, Thanet North, Thanet South, Inverclyde, Taunton Deane, South East Cornwall, St Ives, Maidenhead, Epsom and Ewell, Chipping Barnet, East Renfrewshire, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Telford, Ludlow, Lichfield, Burton, Reading West etc. may provoke complaint from some people, but it is obvious where they serve and shouldn't be changed if they remain the same or stay similar at the next review.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 7, 2018 10:37:35 GMT
I know there is already a huge amount of material on this so I'll just summarise my thoughts - Constituencies should have short names that focus on the main focal points, even if there is more than one local government district, although conciseness shouldn't be the main issue (particularly noticeable in Scotland): - Shrewsbury and Atcham is better as just Shrewsbury.
- Selby and Ainsty is another one; I'm still not entirely sure where Ainsty is.
If a local government district shares its name with the main settlement, the constituency names should be based on the settlement. - Bury North and Bury South is not something I like - I would prefer Bury, and Prestwich and Whitefield. I don't think that has any real effect on the way people think about their constituency.
- North West Durham and North Durham could be renamed.
- Paisley and Renfrewshire North and South - speaks for itself. I'd even prefer Renfrewshire North and Renfrewshire South.
Local government districts that are used in names (providing it isn't the name of a settlement itself,) should only be used reasonably and when the vast majority of the district is the constituency (e.g. Broxbourne or Cannock Chase.) Seats should also use the names of other types of area if they actually define the seat (e.g. Derbyshire Dales) - Wyre and Preston North is a terrible name, partly because of the oddity that is seat itself. Something like Preston North and Garstang would be more preferable to me, but there is no easy solution.
- Some seats, such as Arundel and South Downs don't contain all of the South Downs, but it is obvious what they refer to and should remain the same.
Cities with more than two constituencies should use districts/suburbs in their names rather than meaningless compass directions except the Central seats. Exceptions could include Leicester and Stoke. - For Glasgow: Pollok (SW), Cathcart (S), Shettleston (E), Anniesland (NW), Maryhill (N), Springburn (NE) and Central.
- Even though such seats cover more than one local government district, seats like Blackley and Broughton could be better as Manchester Cheetham.
- Seats like Plymouth Moor View should however revert to Plymouth North.
Compass directions for counties are fine for large areas. - I would however oppose plans for seats like Lanarkshire South East, when Clydesdale would be perfect.
- Seats like Hampshire North West could be Andover, but ones such as North Devon make sense.
Local authority names, such as Waveney and Wyre Forest should be changed. Most of all: Seats with reasonable enough names shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. - Arundel and South Downs, Thanet North, Thanet South, Inverclyde, Taunton Deane, South East Cornwall, St Ives, Maidenhead, Epsom and Ewell, Chipping Barnet, East Renfrewshire, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Telford, Ludlow, Lichfield, Burton, Reading West etc. may provoke complaint from some people, but it is obvious where they serve and shouldn't be changed if they remain the same or stay similar at the next review.
I like the general tone and direction but would urge more simplicity. The name is an indicator and identifier not a complete description. So of those you cite i would pare these down further... Preston North and Garstang.......Preston North (only railway enthusiasts know of Garstang) Arundel and South Downs.....Arundel Taunton Deane.....Taunton Epsom and Ewell.....Epsom (it is far better known from college, salts and racing) Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock.....Ayr |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 7, 2018 12:01:03 GMT
I know there is already a huge amount of material on this so I'll just summarise my thoughts - Constituencies should have short names that focus on the main focal points, even if there is more than one local government district, although conciseness shouldn't be the main issue (particularly noticeable in Scotland): - Shrewsbury and Atcham is better as just Shrewsbury.
- Selby and Ainsty is another one; I'm still not entirely sure where Ainsty is.
If a local government district shares its name with the main settlement, the constituency names should be based on the settlement. - Bury North and Bury South is not something I like - I would prefer Bury, and Prestwich and Whitefield. I don't think that has any real effect on the way people think about their constituency.
- North West Durham and North Durham could be renamed.
- Paisley and Renfrewshire North and South - speaks for itself. I'd even prefer Renfrewshire North and Renfrewshire South.
Local government districts that are used in names (providing it isn't the name of a settlement itself,) should only be used reasonably and when the vast majority of the district is the constituency (e.g. Broxbourne or Cannock Chase.) Seats should also use the names of other types of area if they actually define the seat (e.g. Derbyshire Dales) - Wyre and Preston North is a terrible name, partly because of the oddity that is seat itself. Something like Preston North and Garstang would be more preferable to me, but there is no easy solution.
- Some seats, such as Arundel and South Downs don't contain all of the South Downs, but it is obvious what they refer to and should remain the same.
Cities with more than two constituencies should use districts/suburbs in their names rather than meaningless compass directions except the Central seats. Exceptions could include Leicester and Stoke. - For Glasgow: Pollok (SW), Cathcart (S), Shettleston (E), Anniesland (NW), Maryhill (N), Springburn (NE) and Central.
- Even though such seats cover more than one local government district, seats like Blackley and Broughton could be better as Manchester Cheetham.
- Seats like Plymouth Moor View should however revert to Plymouth North.
Compass directions for counties are fine for large areas. - I would however oppose plans for seats like Lanarkshire South East, when Clydesdale would be perfect.
- Seats like Hampshire North West could be Andover, but ones such as North Devon make sense.
Local authority names, such as Waveney and Wyre Forest should be changed. Most of all: Seats with reasonable enough names shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. - Arundel and South Downs, Thanet North, Thanet South, Inverclyde, Taunton Deane, South East Cornwall, St Ives, Maidenhead, Epsom and Ewell, Chipping Barnet, East Renfrewshire, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Telford, Ludlow, Lichfield, Burton, Reading West etc. may provoke complaint from some people, but it is obvious where they serve and shouldn't be changed if they remain the same or stay similar at the next review.
Plymouth Moor View was never Plymouth North-it was Plymouth Devonport before Devonport was moved in with Plymouth Sutton (which is more similar to the old Plymouth Drake constituency in reality).
Your reasoning behind the naming of constituencies in cities is sound, but this cannot be done with Leeds because only in Leeds North West's case is a large proportion of the constituency outside the old city's boundaries (i.e. the boundaries in place before 1974 when Aireborough, Horsforth, Morley, Otley, Pudsey, Rothwell, and the villages in the Elmet area were absorbed into the metropolitan borough). None of the various parts of Leeds dominate any constituency of Leeds contained entirely in the main city (i.e. Central, East, North East, and West), and it is the same story with Nottingham's three constituencies and Bristol's four constituencies ("Bristol Brislington & St George" and "Bristol Clifton" would be pushing it, for example).
|
|
