Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on May 21, 2019 14:11:27 GMT
Lancashire loses a seat. In fact, according to the 2018 data it's now entitled to 15.000 seats. N Lancs (north of Ribble/Bowland) gets 6 @ 73953 and Mid Lancs gets 9 at 70685.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 21, 2019 14:28:43 GMT
The three Kent seats that have insufficient internal cohesion (or none at all) are Tonbridge, Mid Kent and Faversham. They each sprawl out to suit a map makers purpose of balancing numbers and nothing else at all. Tonbridge does not satisfy, Faversham has no rationale at all, and Mid-Kent is a complete abortion with no contiguity at all from west to east. It has no centre, no purpose and no place of note and substance. So it points to being 'wrong' in structure. The problem essentially is that Kent is a natural for just 17-seats. The best numerical answer is to take 'Greater Tenterden' away into East Sussex for a joint seat based on the old railway line K & ES.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 21, 2019 18:04:45 GMT
I prefer names to be easy direct and simple Dartford Gravesend (Gravesham is very silly indeed and cinfusing) Rochester (no one needs to know about Strood) Gillingham (Rainham is of no consequence) Chatham (no one has heard of Aylesford) Tonbridge (the Mallings are of no consequence) Sevenoaks Tunbridge Wells Mid Kent (not ideal but no one knows insignificant Paddock Wood) Maidstone Sittingbourne (drop the unknown Sheppey) Faversham (don't confuse with other place names) Canterbury Ashford Margate (don't confuse with Thanet or other places) Ramsgate (don't confuse with Thanet or other places) Dover Folkestone (don't confuse with other places) Faverham is really the 'Mid Kent' but that long low straggle could be named Tenterden or after another ancient village of substance? Perhaps Upper Weald or North Weald? Then perhaps not? In fact these difficulties suggest it is not right in structure? That Faversham, Maidstone, Ashford and Tonbridge should be re-drawn to leave a more central Mid-Kent? Communities are not to be easily chopped off by your sharp HB pencil. If a constituency needs Strood, it should have Strood! Is this really true? I don't think I've ever met anyone outside this forum who gave a toss what the name of their constituency or ward was. (Counties and maybe principal authorities, perhaps.) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 21, 2019 18:29:28 GMT
The people who live in your excluded or unimportant towns make a lot of noise to the Boundary Commissions imploring them to include local names in constituency titles. Communities are not to be easily chopped off by your sharp HB pencil. If a constituency needs Strood, it should have Strood! Is this really true? I don't think I've ever met anyone outside this forum who gave a toss what the name of their constituency or ward was. (Counties and maybe principal authorities, perhaps.) It was flaming pitchforks in Church Minshull when there was a suggestion that Eddisbury should be renamed Winsford.  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 21, 2019 18:51:41 GMT
I prefer names to be easy direct and simple Dartford Gravesend (Gravesham is very silly indeed and cinfusing) Rochester (no one needs to know about Strood) Gillingham (Rainham is of no consequence) Chatham (no one has heard of Aylesford) Tonbridge (the Mallings are of no consequence) Sevenoaks Tunbridge Wells Mid Kent (not ideal but no one knows insignificant Paddock Wood) Maidstone Sittingbourne (drop the unknown Sheppey) Faversham (don't confuse with other place names) Canterbury Ashford Margate (don't confuse with Thanet or other places) Ramsgate (don't confuse with Thanet or other places) Dover Folkestone (don't confuse with other places) Faverham is really the 'Mid Kent' but that long low straggle could be named Tenterden or after another ancient village of substance? Perhaps Upper Weald or North Weald? Then perhaps not? In fact these difficulties suggest it is not right in structure? That Faversham, Maidstone, Ashford and Tonbridge should be re-drawn to leave a more central Mid-Kent? The people who live in your excluded or unimportant towns make a lot of noise to the Boundary Commissions imploring them to include local names in constituency titles. Communities are not to be easily chopped off by your sharp HB pencil. If a constituency needs Strood, it should have Strood! Utter bollocks! 99.9% don't give a tinkers and prefer short obvious names. Just a handful of obsessive gormless fuckwits drive all this nonsense and leave us with damn fool titles. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on May 21, 2019 19:54:06 GMT
If there are no changes before GE2022, then the Scottish seats will be based on an electorate from 20 years ago; not quite as long as the 1st Review seats but not far off.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 21, 2019 21:55:25 GMT
Utter bollocks! 99.9% don't give a tinkers and prefer short obvious names. Just a handful of obsessive gormless fuckwits drive all this nonsense and leave us with damn fool titles. But you're suggesting that nobody knows dozens of towns and cities across the country. They do. The name is really for outsiders and a short pithy name is always best. Chatham is fine. It has navy and Dickens associations and a long history and high profile. Rochester is older and has an even higher profile with the river crossing, castle and cathedral. When paired in a single constituency I can put up with Rochester and Chatham but would prefer just plain Rochester. Folkestone and Hythe is much better as just the major channel port and fair-sized town of Folkestone without the admittedly ancient Cinque Port of Hythe which is small and quite close to the larger town. Better to call in Folkestone and Romney (Marsh?) to evidence the extent of the area and recognizing another ancient port. But best of all plain one-word Folkestone. The people in a constituency know where they are and where they live and need a simple no frills title of the most prominent or famous or historic place. There is no need to recognize every single little community and settlement of more than a given number of people. It is silly to employ Aylesford, Strood, Paddock Wood, Broadstairs, Malling and such others as they serve to confuse and are largely unknown to all outside the immediate area. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 21, 2019 22:10:30 GMT
Durham. Entitlement 6.37 so loses a seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 21, 2019 22:10:59 GMT
Stroud gets by perfectly well as Stroud without having to be Stroud Dursley and Stonehouse and it's preferable to having Cotswolds South and Cotswolds North (or West and East respectively.) Whether Dursley, Cam, Berkeley etc get a fair shake from the District Council is open to debate but I don't think the name makes much odds (and isn't an issue for the constituency anyway.) I think doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ is giving too much credence to people who turn up to BCE meetings, who are by definition wildly unrepresentative. They may be unrepresentative in having great expertise in where the local boundaries should go but they have no claim to speak for local opinion. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 21, 2019 22:27:29 GMT
Leeds. All I've actually done is move the Hyde Park ward into Leeds NW.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,773
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 21, 2019 22:28:16 GMT
But you're suggesting that nobody knows dozens of towns and cities across the country. They do. The name is really for outsiders and a short pithy name is always best. Chatham is fine. It has navy and Dickens associations and a long history and high profile. Rochester is older and has an even higher profile with the river crossing, castle and cathedral. When paired in a single constituency I can put up with Rochester and Chatham but would prefer just plain Rochester. Folkestone and Hythe is much better as just the major channel port and fair-sized town of Folkestone without the admittedly ancient Cinque Port of Hythe which is small and quite close to the larger town. Better to call in Folkestone and Romney (Marsh?) to evidence the extent of the area and recognizing another ancient port. But best of all plain one-word Folkestone. The people in a constituency know where they are and where they live and need a simple no frills title of the most prominent or famous or historic place. There is no need to recognize every single little community and settlement of more than a given number of people. It is silly to employ Aylesford, Strood, Paddock Wood, Broadstairs, Malling and such others as they serve to confuse and are largely unknown to all outside the immediate area. But if Folkestone and Hythe is coterminous with the district of that name, why should it not share that name? There is inconsistency around us - the seat called Witney consists of the district of West Oxfordshire, no more, no less. Sort it out, please, call it after the district. Tell me why this is wrong, if you can. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 21, 2019 22:47:15 GMT
So that's all 65 oversize/undersize seats in England taken care of. 6 counties have lost a seat and 5 have gained a seat. It's pretty obvious, I think, that there must be at least a couple more counties that should get/lose an extra seat, but where none of the seats are currently 15% too big/small. Gloucestershire is probably one of them. I suppose a rolling review should deal with those counties too. But first I'll have a look at Scotland.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 21, 2019 22:55:45 GMT
I prefer names to be easy direct and simple Dartford Gravesend (Gravesham is very silly indeed and cinfusing) Rochester (no one needs to know about Strood) Gillingham (Rainham is of no consequence) Chatham (no one has heard of Aylesford) Tonbridge (the Mallings are of no consequence) Sevenoaks Tunbridge Wells Mid Kent (not ideal but no one knows insignificant Paddock Wood) Maidstone Sittingbourne (drop the unknown Sheppey) Faversham (don't confuse with other place names) Canterbury Ashford Margate (don't confuse with Thanet or other places) Ramsgate (don't confuse with Thanet or other places) Dover Folkestone (don't confuse with other places) Faverham is really the 'Mid Kent' but that long low straggle could be named Tenterden or after another ancient village of substance? Perhaps Upper Weald or North Weald? Then perhaps not? In fact these difficulties suggest it is not right in structure? That Faversham, Maidstone, Ashford and Tonbridge should be re-drawn to leave a more central Mid-Kent? The people who live in your excluded or unimportant towns make a lot of noise to the Boundary Commissions imploring them to include local names in constituency titles. Communities are not to be easily chopped off by your sharp HB pencil. If a constituency needs Strood, it should have Strood! My position is somewhere between the two of you. Some additions, eg. Strood, are ridiculous. Strood has been part of Rochester since the mid-19th century. The Commission should never have bowed to the (flimsy) pressure to include it. Others make sense, eg. Sittingbourne & Sheppey is formed from two distinct parts. nb. I've used shorthand names on some of my map labels which don't indicate my preferences. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 22, 2019 8:12:14 GMT
Glasgow.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,075
|
Post by The Bishop on May 22, 2019 10:16:09 GMT
Lancashire loses a seat. In fact, according to the 2018 data it's now entitled to 15.000 seats. N Lancs (north of Ribble/Bowland) gets 6 @ 73953 and Mid Lancs gets 9 at 70685. Sorry mate, but that split of Lancaster is an abomination  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 23, 2019 12:08:31 GMT
Lancashire loses a seat. In fact, according to the 2018 data it's now entitled to 15.000 seats. N Lancs (north of Ribble/Bowland) gets 6 @ 73953 and Mid Lancs gets 9 at 70685. Sorry mate, but that split of Lancaster is an abomination It is, but it is the current situation and has been for over 20 years now |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 23, 2019 13:02:42 GMT
Lancashire loses a seat. In fact, according to the 2018 data it's now entitled to 15.000 seats. N Lancs (north of Ribble/Bowland) gets 6 @ 73953 and Mid Lancs gets 9 at 70685. Sorry mate, but that split of Lancaster is an abomination ? Lancaster is already split like that. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2019 22:35:14 GMT
Lancaster & Morecambe makes far more sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2019 22:39:13 GMT
Penrith & Cockermouth would be more appropriate, especially with the boundaries approximating to those of the 1918-50 constituency of that name. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on May 24, 2019 18:31:40 GMT
Scotland. 59 seats, 57 excluding the N & W Isles. 2018 electorate (inc attainers)
3925820 /59 = quotient 66,539. 15% size limits 56,558 - 76,520.
3871117 /57 = quotient 67,914. 15% size limits 57,727 - 78,101.
Which is the correct quotient to use? It affects which seats need to be changed.
Undersize seats
Caithness
Glasgow N
Ross
(NE Fife) = undersize on 57-seat quotient
Oversize seats
Linlithgow
Falkirk
Livingston
East Kilbride
Rutherglen
(East Lothian) =
(Gordon) = oversize on 59-seat quotient
(Ochil) =
I've revised all the listed seats. Revising East Lothian potentially requires lots of changes elsewhere, especially if one works on the basis of not splitting wards.
|
|
