Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on May 8, 2019 4:15:17 GMT
I don’t so much mind the names, and heaven forfend we should follow the American system of just having numbered Districts, but I do wish they wouldn’t keep dropping names because said person has fallen out of favour. I do agree with you on the American naming system although to be fair they cover such vast areas (plus the often illogical borders caused by gerrymandering) make an accurate but succinct name difficult in many cases. Maybe they should go for the state followed by a brief descriptor instead of a number e.g. for Nebraska: 1st: Nebraska - Lincoln and East, 2nd: Nebraska - Omaha, 3rd: Nebraska - Rural West (or something like that). I like Canada's naming system except for the fact they have an annoying habit of making them stupidly long. Those descriptions may not be official names, but something like that will often appear on C-SPAN under the name of a representative when they are speaking in a debate in the House. It might be worth noting that France uses the format 'name of département + roman numeral' too. The worst offenders in Canada (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes spring to mind) seem to have been influenced by local tourist boards lobbying the people who set the boundaries over there. Has anyone ever booked a holiday based on the name of a parliamentary constituency before? Some friends of mine are enjoying Fuerteventura at the moment, where the name of the Senate seat at the recent Spanish election was, er... Fuerteventura. Alberta and Québec have been known to name provincial ridings after people as well, in the Australian style. For me the primary function of the name of an electoral district should be to describe where it is as succinctly as possible. Naming them after people makes absolutely no sense at all. Imagine what it would look like in this country and how ridiculous it would sound: Grantham and Stamford would be Thatcher, Stratford-on-Avon would be Shakespeare, Poplar and Limehouse would be Attlee, Bradford West would be Brontë... As for Australia, just a quick glance and most of them do seem to be geographically named, and the electorates named after people are either largely rural or in areas with no obvious place name; our new ACT seat is an example as I suspect most people not living in the Territory have heard of the population centres that comprise the electorate. It depends what you think a naming convention is for. Everyone who can vote in that district will be a resident of the Territory. Those of us watching an ABC stream from halfway around the world will not immediately have a clue where a lot of the seats are located. One complication is a requirement to preserve original Federation electorate names wherever possible, which is probably why Werriwa was left with that name (even though it hasn't contained Werriwa since 1913). Eden–Monaro will never die! I'm not sure if it was one of the originals, but I know there was some resistance to the idea of changing Corangamite to Cox (which would've made it one of the few electorates named after a woman), so the plan was dropped. Personally I'd have called it Vegemite myself.  |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 8, 2019 7:18:23 GMT
As for Australia, just a quick glance and most of them do seem to be geographically named, and the electorates named after people are either largely rural or in areas with no obvious place name; our new ACT seat is an example as I suspect most people not living in the Territory have heard of the population centres that comprise the electorate. It depends what you think a naming convention is for. Everyone who can vote in that district will be a resident of the Territory. Those of us watching an ABC stream from halfway around the world will not immediately have a clue where a lot of the seats are located[/quote] I really meant that people in Sydney or Melbourne wouldn’t be familiar with some of the places - ACT is probably an unfair example, but to most people it’s Canberra full-stop. I think that’s also a wider issue as Australia is so big on its suburbs - I’ve seen this, ask your average Sydneysider where Neighbours is filmed and they’ll answer “Melbourne”, when in fact it’s Vermont South, which doesn’t even fall within Melbourne City Council’s boundaries. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on May 8, 2019 7:36:41 GMT
I really meant that people in Sydney or Melbourne wouldn’t be familiar with some of the places - ACT is probably an unfair example, but to most people it’s Canberra full-stop. I think that’s also a wider issue as Australia is so big on its suburbs - I’ve seen this, ask your average Sydneysider where Neighbours is filmed and they’ll answer “Melbourne”, when in fact it’s Vermont South, which doesn’t even fall within Melbourne City Council’s boundaries. True, but that's more to do with municipal boundaries not keeping up with outward expansion of cities (or simply being messed about with by successive governments in the case of NSW) than about parliamentary naming conventions. Besides, I've been to south Vermont. It felt a long way from Erinsborough! |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 8, 2019 7:38:43 GMT
I really meant that people in Sydney or Melbourne wouldn’t be familiar with some of the places - ACT is probably an unfair example, but to most people it’s Canberra full-stop. I think that’s also a wider issue as Australia is so big on its suburbs - I’ve seen this, ask your average Sydneysider where Neighbours is filmed and they’ll answer “Melbourne”, when in fact it’s Vermont South, which doesn’t even fall within Melbourne City Council’s boundaries. True, but that's more to do with municipal boundaries not keeping up with outward expansion of cities (or simply being messed about with by successive governments in the case of NSW) than about parliamentary naming conventions. Besides, I've been to south Vermont. It felt a long way from Erinsborough! Just as Pin Oak Court feels none of the community spirit of Ramsey Street, they even lock their doors for goodness sake! 😛 |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on May 8, 2019 7:40:52 GMT
I don’t so much mind the names, and heaven forfend we should follow the American system of just having numbered Districts, but I do wish they wouldn’t keep dropping names because said person has fallen out of favour. For me the primary function of the name of an electoral district should be to describe where it is as succinctly as possible. Naming them after people makes absolutely no sense at all. Imagine what it would look like in this country and how ridiculous it would sound: Grantham and Stamford would be Thatcher, Stratford-on-Avon would be Shakespeare, Poplar and Limehouse would be Attlee, Bradford West would be Brontë... I would suggest that Grantham and Stamford would be Newton, in order to avoid needless controversy. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on May 8, 2019 7:47:11 GMT
True, but that's more to do with municipal boundaries not keeping up with outward expansion of cities (or simply being messed about with by successive governments in the case of NSW) than about parliamentary naming conventions. Besides, I've been to south Vermont. It felt a long way from Erinsborough! Just as Pin Oak Court feels none of the community spirit of Ramsey Street, they even lock their doors for goodness sake! 😛 The behaviour of the residents of Rams ay Street has never been entirely rational or realistic. For me the primary function of the name of an electoral district should be to describe where it is as succinctly as possible. Naming them after people makes absolutely no sense at all. Imagine what it would look like in this country and how ridiculous it would sound: Grantham and Stamford would be Thatcher, Stratford-on-Avon would be Shakespeare, Poplar and Limehouse would be Attlee, Bradford West would be Brontë... I would suggest that Grantham and Stamford would be Newton, in order to avoid needless controversy. That would be offensive to people who do not believe in gravity.  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 8, 2019 8:03:35 GMT
For me the primary function of the name of an electoral district should be to describe where it is as succinctly as possible. Naming them after people makes absolutely no sense at all. Imagine what it would look like in this country and how ridiculous it would sound: Grantham and Stamford would be Thatcher, Stratford-on-Avon would be Shakespeare, Poplar and Limehouse would be Attlee, Bradford West would be Brontë... I would suggest that Grantham and Stamford would be Newton, in order to avoid needless controversy. At least someone appreciates the gravity of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 8, 2019 8:16:43 GMT
For me the primary function of the name of an electoral district should be to describe where it is as succinctly as possible. Naming them after people makes absolutely no sense at all. Imagine what it would look like in this country and how ridiculous it would sound: Grantham and Stamford would be Thatcher, Stratford-on-Avon would be Shakespeare, Poplar and Limehouse would be Attlee, Bradford West would be Brontë... I would suggest that Grantham and Stamford would be Newton, in order to avoid needless controversy. It should be called Hooke, in order to create needless controversy. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 8, 2019 8:43:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 9:47:16 GMT
As for Australia, just a quick glance and most of them do seem to be geographically named, and the electorates named after people are either largely rural or in areas with no obvious place name; our new ACT seat is an example as I suspect most people not living in the Territory have heard of the population centres that comprise the electorate. I really meant that people in Sydney or Melbourne wouldn’t be familiar with some of the places - ACT is probably an unfair example, but to most people it’s Canberra full-stop. I think that’s also a wider issue as Australia is so big on its suburbs - I’ve seen this, ask your average Sydneysider where Neighbours is filmed and they’ll answer “Melbourne”, when in fact it’s Vermont South, which doesn’t even fall within Melbourne City Council’s boundaries. Melbourne residents would also say that Neighbours is filmed in Melbourne. The Melbourne City Council area is tiny, and doesn't even cover all of the innermost suburbs - eg Fitzroy and Collingwood, right on the edge of the CBD, are in the Yarra City Council area but no one would call them anything other than Melbourne. It's better to think of Australian metro areas as set up like London with lots of quite small boroughs (though without any metro-wide authority). One exception is Brisbane which has a much larger city council but even that doesn't cover the whole metro area. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 8, 2019 9:47:55 GMT
I don’t so much mind the names, and heaven forfend we should follow the American system of just having numbered Districts, but I do wish they wouldn’t keep dropping names because said person has fallen out of favour. Scope for another thread on bad ward names: Most Embarrassing Former Hero for a ward to be named after: Oxford: Rhodes Bristol: Colston Shropshire: Robert Clive I like those. Fine names. Happy with all three. Excellent choices. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2019 11:33:20 GMT
I really meant that people in Sydney or Melbourne wouldn’t be familiar with some of the places - ACT is probably an unfair example, but to most people it's Canberra full-stop. I think that's also a wider issue as Australia is so big on its suburbs - I've seen this, ask your average Sydneysider where Neighbours is filmed and they'll answer "Melbourne", when in fact it's Vermont South, which doesn't even fall within Melbourne City Council's boundaries. Melbourne residents would also say that Neighbours is filmed in Melbourne. The Melbourne City Council area is tiny, and doesn't even cover all of the innermost suburbs - eg Fitzroy and Collingwood, right on the edge of the CBD, are in the Yarra City Council area but no one would call them anything other than Melbourne. It's better to think of Australian metro areas as set up like London with lots of quite small boroughs (though without any metro-wide authority). One exception is Brisbane which has a much larger city council but even that doesn't cover the whole metro area. Yeah, Brisbane is the one place where the "super city" concept took hold and so there was a mass amalgamation to create a large council area, though subsequent development has pushed beyond the boundaries. Queensland seems to be the one state with a serious approach to local government. Bear in mind also that Queensland has the lowest proportion of its population living in its capital city. Elsewhere metro government hasn't taken off, probably because the metro area is such a big proportion of the state population that it would create a duplicate tier of government. The result is this patchwork of local councils, (even in Hobart and Darwin) and Lord Mayors of [Capital City Name] who are like the Lord Mayor of London. Councils are frequently reorganised, repeatedly suspended ("sacked") and voting arrangements changed back and forth. The City of Sydney is one of the worst as Antony Green sets out but in general municipal boundaries are so changeable that they don't get used for popular geography. (This is true outside the capitals as well - a local government area may carry the name of a town, but without checking do you know if it also includes the hinterland or not?) The ACT has no local government at all so one could endlessly argue about whether a settlement is a suburb or satellite of Canberra. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 8, 2019 12:59:30 GMT
The ACT has no local government at all so one could endlessly argue about whether a settlement is a suburb or satellite of Canberra. The Territory government (https://www.act.gov.au) is basically a local council, with decisions able to be overturned by the Federal Government. Arguments about some settlements being suburbs or satellites of Canberra are resolved by them being included in the jurisdiction of some NSW regional governments. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on May 8, 2019 13:20:31 GMT
Australia started with seats named for places but has slowly named them in honour of various Australians, often with little regard for the connections - e.g. both Whitlam and Fraser did not represent the areas now covered by the divisions named after them. It sees as though seat names are assigned on the basis of what's available and who needs to be honoured. When Bob Hawke passes away the next Victorian redistribution will pick whatever seat is to hand - either a new one if the national distribution supplies an extra (like Fraser) or else demote someone else (Whitlam was previously Throsby). One complication is a requirement to preserve original Federation electorate names wherever possible, which is probably why Werriwa was left with that name (even though it hasn't contained Werriwa since 1913). Hmmm.. Cowper has been a seat since Federation and it first MP was my great-grandfather... and it was not geographically named, but after a colonial Premier of NSW en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Cowper |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2019 13:25:49 GMT
The ACT has no local government at all so one could endlessly argue about whether a settlement is a suburb or satellite of Canberra. The Territory government (https://www.act.gov.au) is basically a local council, with decisions able to be overturned by the Federal Government. Arguments about some settlements being suburbs or satellites of Canberra are resolved by them being included in the jurisdiction of some NSW regional governments. Frustratingly the "Greater Capital City Statistical Areas" for "Canberra–Queanbeyan" crosses the ACT into New South Wales. The statistics generally seem to treat almost all of the ACT as "Canberra", bar some of the rural townships, but the use of the term "Town Centre" in some of the settlements like Gungahlin points differently. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on May 8, 2019 13:34:07 GMT
It's better to think of Australian metro areas as set up like London with lots of quite small boroughs (though without any metro-wide authority). One exception is Brisbane which has a much larger city council but even that doesn't cover the whole metro area. Australian local government is completely bizarre, mostly because it is the responsibility of the various state governments who have all preferred to keep it as weak as possible. Part of the issue there is quite how dominant the capital is within each state: allow the creation of strong local government, and you create an alternative and potentially very strong political powerbase at the heart of your state's polity. Consequences have not been super; basically uncontrolled development with related hideous ecological damage around the ever-expanding fringes and a whole host of issues caused by the lack of citywide planning or policies. Some of these are genuinely pretty embarrassing: Sydney's issues with sewage for instance... |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2019 13:51:18 GMT
Australia started with seats named for places but has slowly named them in honour of various Australians, often with little regard for the connections - e.g. both Whitlam and Fraser did not represent the areas now covered by the divisions named after them. It sees as though seat names are assigned on the basis of what's available and who needs to be honoured. When Bob Hawke passes away the next Victorian redistribution will pick whatever seat is to hand - either a new one if the national distribution supplies an extra (like Fraser) or else demote someone else (Whitlam was previously Throsby). One complication is a requirement to preserve original Federation electorate names wherever possible, which is probably why Werriwa was left with that name (even though it hasn't contained Werriwa since 1913). Hmmm.. Cowper has been a seat since Federation and it first MP was my great-grandfather... and it was not geographically named, but after a colonial Premier of NSW en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_CowperI hadn't realised it was that early and it would probably have been the influence of the colony/state parliaments. Western Australia's original electorates all had geographic names and both South Australia & Tasmania elected statewide at first. Other original electorates named for people include: Bland (they got rid of that one pretty quickly; it was Chris Watson's seat) Dalley Hume Hunter (although it's also the region name) Lang Macquarie Parkes Robertson Wentworth Bourke Flinders Herbert Kennedy Oxley (later recycled years after the original became Griffith) One major problem with the way Australia names seats is that it can become very difficult for a voter to keep track of which electorate they're in, especially in urban areas where the boundaries can be quite arbitrary, change easily and the local media covers all. (By contrast rural seats tend to contain whole towns with distinct media footprints.) It gets worse when the names don't cover all - for instance Newcastle doesn't cover the whole of the city. This probably contributes to turnouts in by-elections and a lot of wrong ballot papers issued in general elections. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2019 13:54:19 GMT
The worst offenders in Canada (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes spring to mind) seem to have been influenced by local tourist boards lobbying the people who set the boundaries over there. I wonder if this is actually an attempt to avoid some of the voter knowledge problems that I described occurring with the Australian names. If nothing else these long names do give more of an idea as to all of what the seat contains. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on May 8, 2019 14:02:18 GMT
Some of the electorate names have become quite ironic, such as Curtin (a safe Liberal seat which has never voted Labor in its existence)
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2019 14:26:42 GMT
The same in the other direction is true of Gorton and McMahon. Fraser is new at this election (there was a previous seat of that name in the ACT) and is notionally so safe for Labor that Bill Shorten considered moving over.
Fisher and Cook have each had only one brief period of being held by their namesake's side of politics.
Reid was Labor of one kind or another for its first 91 years (Jack Lang sat for one term) but has been Liberal since 2013. However at the 2010 election Reid was effectively abolished with the name transferred to a redrawn marginal Lowe.
Neither Fadden nor McEwan has ever been held by the Nationals (the current Fadden MP has sit since before the LNP merger and sits as a Liberal).
Another seat that isn't behaving like its namesake is Hughes, which has been represented by only two parties in 64 years.
|
|
