Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2014 14:23:46 GMT
Doktorb - when you next visit Preston Library why not take a peek at the aborted 1946 review (Lancs proposals published on October 18th)...some ideas for later submissions? The proposed Blackrod division - The urban districts of Adlington, Aspull, Billinge & Winstanley, Blackrod, Horwich, Orrell, Skelmersdale, Standish with Langtree and Upholland and the rural district of Wigan. Blackburn North - St John's, St. Luke's, St Mark's, St Mary's, St Michael's, St Paul's, St Peter's, St Silas', St Stephen's & Trinity wards of Blackburn. Blackburn Darwen - Park, St. Andrew's, St Matthew's, St Thomas's wards of Blackburn plus Darwen and Turton. Of course Preston North was to be named Preston Fulwood and the South constituency Preston Walton-le-Dale. They did not prove to be popular suggestions. Wow! Would this be at the Harris, do you know? I'd be very interested in having a look... |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 9, 2014 15:06:44 GMT
Assuming that they have the local papers on microfilm and they ought to be well stocked. Searching is free...it's the printing that costs.
* Heywood & Radcliffe, bar a few alterations, would have survived the 1946 review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2014 16:18:47 GMT
Hmm. I think going back to the 1940s means booking an appointment at the Records Office. But worth looking into, "Preston Fulwood" indeed!!
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 9, 2014 19:08:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 8:22:11 GMT
I can't miss Scotland out of this memory burst of zombie constituencies  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 8:26:41 GMT
And using me as a source (always dodgy) - constituency names that had not been used before (with "The" added to CoL/W, and VoG)
Northern Ireland
*Belfast South East
*Belfast South West
*Coleraine and North Antrim
*Glenshane
Scotland
*Airdrie and Coatbridge South
*Angus East and Kincardine
*Angus West and East Perthshire
*Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
*Ayr North, Troon and Cumnock
*Ayrshire Central and Arran
*Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty
*Clackmannanshire and Dunfermline West
*Clydesdale and Larkhall
*Cumbernauld and Coatbridge North
*Deeside and Gordon
*East Dunbartonshire and Kilsyth
*East Kilbride and Rutherglen
*East Renfrewshire and Hairmyres
*Edinburgh Central and Leith
*Edinburgh South East
*Galloway, Ayr South and Carrick
*Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West
*Inverness and Skye
*Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes
*Midlothian and Tweeddale
*Motherwell, Wishaw and Bellshill
*Paisley and Renfrew
*Perth and Kintoss-shire
*Renfrewshire South and Ayrshire North
*Stirling and Crieff
*West Dunbartonshire and Bearsden North
England (excluding London)
*Aldridge, Brownhills and Bloxwich
*Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton
*Barnsley North and Hemsworth
*Barnsley South
*Basildon and Thurrock East
*Berwick, Alnwick and Morpeth
*Bideford, Bude and Launceston
*Billericay and Great Dunmow
*Birmingham Erdington and Castle Bromwich
*Birmingham Harborne
*Blyth and Ashington
*Bodmin and St Austell
*Bolton North and Darwen
*Bootle and North Liverpool
*Bournemouth West and Bourne Valley
*Bradford East and Horsforth
*Braintree and Witham
*Bridgnorth, Wellington and The Wrekin
*Brighton East and Seahaven
*Bromsgrove and Droitwich
*Burnham and Glastonbury
*Burnley and Accrington East
*Canterbury and Faversham
*Chatham and Malling
*Coalville and Keyworth
*Colne Valley and Denby Dale
*Crosby and Maghull
*Daventry and Lutterworth
*Derby East
*Derby West
*Didcot and Wantage
*Dudley East and Oldbury
*Gateshead East and Jarrow
*Goole and Howden
*Grimsby North and Barton
*Grimsby South and Cleethorpes
*Harwich and Clacton
*Hazel Grove and Poynton
*Henley and Thame
*Herne Bay
*Isle of Wight East
*Isle of Wight West
*Kenilworth and Dorridge
*Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
*Kingswood and Keynsham
*Leeds Metropolitan and Ossett
*Leeds South East and Castleford
*Leeds West, Pudsey and Tong
*Lewes and Uckfield
*Liverpool Riverside and Walton
*Ludlow and Leominster
*Luton North and Dunstable
*Malvern and Ledbury
*Manchester Gorton and Reddish North
*Mersey Banks and Weaver
*Mid Bedfordshire and Harpenden
*Mid Dorset
*Newcastle upon Tyne North and Cramlington
*Norfolk Coastal
*North East Essex
*Nottingham North and Hucknall
*Nottingham South and West Bridgford
*Penrith and Solway
*Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle
*Rotherham and Sheffield East
*Rotherham North
*Sheffield Hallam and Penistone
*Sheffield North and Dodworth
*South East Hertfordshire
*South Gloucestershire East
*South Gloucestershire West
*Southend East and Rochford
*St Neots and Huntingdon
*Stockton North and Aycliffe
*Stourbridge and Dudley
*Tavistock and Plympton
*The Cities of London and Westminster
*The Weald
*Truro and Newquay
*Walsall West
*Warminster and Shaftesbury
*Washington
*Wells and North East Somerset
*West Cumbria
*West Wiltshire
*Wirral Deeside
*Wisbech and Downham Market
London
*Bexleyheath and Erith
*Sidcup and Welling
*Thamesmead and Plumstead
*Wembley
*Greenford and Northolt
*Willesden
*Islington South and Holborn
*Camden Town and Regent's Park
*Carshalton and Coulsdon
*Ealing Central
*Hammersmith and Acton
*Southall and Heston
*Edmonton and Tottenham Hale
*Eltham and Charlton
*Greenwich and Lewisham Central
*Stamford Hill and South Tottenham
*Bethnal Green and Shoreditch
*Hayes and Feltham
*Brentworth and Isleworth
*Hampton
*Wimbledon and Coombe
*Clapham and Streatham
*Battersea and Vauxhall
*Bermondsey and South Bank
*Deptford and Rotherhithe
*East Ham and Loxford
*Bow and Stratford
*Richmond and Twickenham
*Dulwich and Peckham
*Poplar and Stepney
Wales
*Conwy and Colwyn
*Denbigh and North Montgomeryshire
*Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery
*Flint and North Denbighshire
*Gwynedd
*Wrexham Maelor
*Ynys Môn a Bangor
*Caerfyrddin
*Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire
*South Pembrokeshire
*Cardiff North and South West Gwent
*The Vale of Glamorgan
*Aberavon and Ogmore
*Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and Lower Cynon
*Rhondda and Aberdare
*Gower and Swansea West
*Neath and the Swansea Valley
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 3, 2014 13:34:21 GMT
The McDougall Trust (who I just realise are actually located in the exact same building where I am now working) have issued a report on the failed 6th Periodical Review: www.mcdougall.org.uk/uploads/PDFs/Equality,%20Community%20and%20ContinuityFJUne25.pdf Basic conclusion is that the 5% threshold was ludicrous and forced major change even when none was really needed. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 3, 2014 13:50:07 GMT
Did they also draw conclusions regarding the religious leanings of the Pontiff and the toilet habits of ursine mammals??
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jul 3, 2014 13:56:08 GMT
I have one request for the next review: let there be a character limit for constituency names throughout the UK. I'd recommend it being however many characters were in the longest constituency name between 1983 and 1997. (Maybe it was Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber).
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jul 3, 2014 13:58:24 GMT
The McDougall Trust (who I just realise are actually located in the exact same building where I am now working) In that case I can probably see your office from my home. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 3, 2014 23:09:31 GMT
The McDougall Trust (who I just realise are actually located in the exact same building where I am now working) have issued a report on the failed 6th Periodical Review: www.mcdougall.org.uk/uploads/PDFs/Equality,%20Community%20and%20ContinuityFJUne25.pdf Basic conclusion is that the 5% threshold was ludicrous and forced major change even when none was really needed. I would say it was more to do with the Boundary Commission's stubborn and irrational insistence on not splitting wards except in extreme cases. It was quite clear during the passage of the legislation that MPs were, on the whole, expecting wards to be split if it was necessary to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by simoncooke on Jul 3, 2014 23:32:13 GMT
The McDougall Trust (who I just realise are actually located in the exact same building where I am now working) have issued a report on the failed 6th Periodical Review: www.mcdougall.org.uk/uploads/PDFs/Equality,%20Community%20and%20ContinuityFJUne25.pdf Basic conclusion is that the 5% threshold was ludicrous and forced major change even when none was really needed. I would say it was more to do with the Boundary Commission's stubborn and irrational insistence on not splitting wards except in extreme cases. It was quite clear during the passage of the legislation that MPs were, on the whole, expecting wards to be split if it was necessary to do so. Chiz |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 11:00:15 GMT
I will study that report later. But I already disagree with the findings if David's brief summary is accurate.
Quirks of geography are no reason to whine about gerrymandering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2014 11:11:01 GMT
I will study that report later. But I already disagree with the findings if David's brief summary is accurate. Quirks of geography are no reason to whine about gerrymandering. Don't think you've understood it at all. The McDougall Trust wanted to know why the changes to boundaries proposed were so significant, and produced draft recommendations which were widely criticised for being bizarrely drawn and having little to do with actual community ties. They don't claim that the Boundary Commissions were gerrymandering. That's because, as we all know, the gerrymandering had taken place long before: it was in the instructions given to the Boundary Commissions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 11:19:48 GMT
I will study that report later. But I already disagree with the findings if David's brief summary is accurate. Quirks of geography are no reason to whine about gerrymandering. Don't think you've understood it at all. The McDougall Trust wanted to know why the changes to boundaries proposed were so significant, and produced draft recommendations which were widely criticised for being bizarrely drawn and having little to do with actual community ties. They don't claim that the Boundary Commissions were gerrymandering. That's because, as we all know, the gerrymandering had taken place long before: it was in the instructions given to the Boundary Commissions. Oh don't talk rot. You're the first to jump on people using words and phrases incorrectly, so know all too well that no gerrymandering took place at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2014 11:28:10 GMT
The government's declared aim in changing the rules at this boundary review was to change the outcome in terms of seats, even when no change in votes occurred. That is the definition of gerrymandering and I'm sorry you're too blinkered to see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 12:32:03 GMT
The government's declared aim in changing the rules at this boundary review was to change the outcome in terms of seats, even when no change in votes occurred. That is the definition of gerrymandering and I'm sorry you're too blinkered to see it. Not true, and you know that's not true. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 4, 2014 13:09:18 GMT
The government's declared aim in changing the rules at this boundary review was to change the outcome in terms of seats, even when no change in votes occurred. That is the definition of gerrymandering and I'm sorry you're too blinkered to see it. The purpose was to reduce the effect of the inequalities which existed beforehand, and which had become exacerbated by the ratchet effect building up over a number of years. If there was gerrymandering, it was only to undo the previous gerrymandering. The aborted review did, however, very successfully produce a decisive paradigm shift away from the representation of communities to the representation of people. If the new legislation continues with a fresh review after 2015, it should be done on the basis of splitting wards in order to minimise the disruption to existing boundaries. If not, then they should go back to the old system without specific variation limits. Personally, I would prefer to go back to the pre-1997 situation where London boroughs were kept separate and not combined in pairs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 13:28:52 GMT
I would stick with the zombie review rules. We have too many MPs, and the review helped towards a more suitable and cost effective number
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2014 13:50:09 GMT
|
|
