Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 13:34:14 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 It's true only railway enthusiasts know of Garstang. My reasoning for Epsom and Ewell would be the fact that Ewell is just as sizeable as Epsom and matches the authority. Perhaps Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock could just be South Ayrshire? I understand the Cumnock wards are in East Ayrshire, but I find that South Ayrshire is a better identifier and more reasonable indicator than Ayr. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 13:36:49 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
All reasonable points. In the case of Leeds I would opt to have something along the lines of Leeds North and Otley, which to me seems a reasonable indicator. I'd leave Morley and Outwood, Pudsey and Elmet and Rothwell as they are. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on May 7, 2018 15:53:27 GMT
With regard to compass point names, they need to clearly describe the constituency. North Durham is a good example of somewhere we wouldn't be able to locate without prior knowledge. It could easily be Gateshead (the northern most point of Durham), Blaydon or North West Durham. The constituency should be renamed Chester-le-Street while North West Durham should be renamed Consett.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 8, 2018 10:15:07 GMT
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
All reasonable points. In the case of Leeds I would opt to have something along the lines of Leeds North and Otley, which to me seems a reasonable indicator. I'd leave Morley and Outwood, Pudsey and Elmet and Rothwell as they are. Coventry's another city where compass points seem inevitable. There isn't a suburb/district of Coventry that dominates any one of the three constituencies. At a push, you could just about get away with renaming Coventry North East to Coventry Stoke (which would confuse people not familiar with the city), but you'd probably have to include several area names in the other two constituencies. I think the threshold for being unable to use compass points should be four or five constituencies, rather than your proposal of three. Either way, (aside from "Central"), any one city with multiple constituencies should use entirely suburb/area names or entirely compass points, but not a mixture of both. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 8, 2018 13:36:36 GMT
Compass points. It is entirely arbitrary which district of a city gets a constituency name. Here in Birmingham for example:
North (Erdington) North-West (Perry Barr) Central (Ladywood) South Central (Edgbaston) South-West (Northfield) South (Selly Oak) South-East (Hall Green) East (Yardley) North-East (Hodge Hill)
Apart from anything else people from outside Birmingham would have an idea where the constituencies were. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 8, 2018 14:25:59 GMT
But what would you call Sutton Coldfield?  |
|
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 May 8, 2018 14:31:29 GMT
But what would you call Sutton Coldfield? Sutton Coldfield. Any other suggestions bring the pitchforks out ... |
|
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 May 8, 2018 14:33:32 GMT
Compass points. It is entirely arbitrary which district of a city gets a constituency name. Here in Birmingham for example:
North (Erdington) North-West (Perry Barr) Central (Ladywood) South Central (Edgbaston) South-West (Northfield) South (Selly Oak) South-East (Hall Green) East (Yardley) North-East (Hodge Hill)
Apart from anything else people from outside Birmingham would have an idea where the constituencies were. In fact it's so arbritrary that after the last boundary review, the old Hall Green and the new one had only the titular ward in common. Compass points would easily have made more sense. And under your scheme Edgbaston should be just plain "West". |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on May 8, 2018 14:59:46 GMT
But what would you call Sutton Coldfield? Birmingham North. |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on May 8, 2018 15:18:03 GMT
But what would you call Sutton Coldfield? Birmingham North. Birmingham beyond the wall... |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on May 8, 2018 15:31:00 GMT
But what would you call Sutton Coldfield? Sutton (West Midlands). |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on May 8, 2018 16:04:05 GMT
By far the worst constituency name is Richmond (Yorks). Deeply offensive to us Northallertonians  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on May 8, 2018 16:53:49 GMT
I'm not from Birmingham and I'd find all those Birmingham South Something names definitely more confusing than Edgbaston, Northfield and Selly Oak, which are nice and distinctive. I'd concede, though, that Hall Green should have been renamed when it was so radically redrawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 17:41:45 GMT
By far the worst constituency name is Richmond (Yorks). Deeply offensive to us Northallertonians I don't know whether it's the brackets or the fact it contains more than Richmondshire or the fact there's Richmond Park or the fact Richmond is small and not a good indicator but I would agree that it is the worst constituency name by a mile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 17:51:07 GMT
Compass points. It is entirely arbitrary which district of a city gets a constituency name. Here in Birmingham for example:
North (Erdington) North-West (Perry Barr) Central (Ladywood) South Central (Edgbaston) South-West (Northfield) South (Selly Oak) South-East (Hall Green) East (Yardley) North-East (Hodge Hill)
Apart from anything else people from outside Birmingham would have an idea where the constituencies were. I struggle to see how this makes it more obvious where the seats are considering they aren't neatly arranged. Sure, it becomes apparent that, for example, the area Jess Philips represents is in the East, but it's not apparent where she serves considering how large Birmingham is. These names indicate the main focal points of their seats rather than being a perfect descriptor. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 8, 2018 21:33:22 GMT
I always find Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East excruciatingly cumbersome!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on May 8, 2018 21:41:25 GMT
I always find Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East excruciatingly cumbersome! Even if the name would be inaccurate, I think I prefer Langbaurgh, and most of the time that's what I tend to call it in my head. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 8, 2018 22:27:00 GMT
If a local government district shares its name with the main settlement, the constituency names should be based on the settlement. You. Outside. Now. |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on May 8, 2018 22:41:02 GMT
I always find Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East excruciatingly cumbersome! Even if the name would be inaccurate, I think I prefer Langbaurgh, and most of the time that's what I tend to call it in my head. But how do you pronounce it?! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 8, 2018 22:44:15 GMT
Just call it Cleveland for God's sake
|
|
