|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 23, 2020 17:41:06 GMT
Tamworth used to be in Warwickshire so some sharing is acceptable, but I think you should prepare for offcut pots to be hurled your way by outraged residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the five towns of Stoke. They don't have pitchforks there, you see. Potsherds is the word you are searching for. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 23, 2020 17:43:11 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread At the moment the whole of Ossett is within the Wakefield constituency. Ossett is too big for one ward but too small for two wards hence part of Ossett is put into Horbury ward. Having the town split between a South Leeds seat and Wakefield makes absolutely no sense |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,722
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 23, 2020 18:00:44 GMT
Tamworth used to be in Warwickshire so some sharing is acceptable, but I think you should prepare for offcut pots to be hurled your way by outraged residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the five towns of Stoke. They don't have pitchforks there, you see. Six towns, please. Bennett forgot (or deliberately omitted) Fenton, pseudonymised or not, from his books. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 23, 2020 18:06:07 GMT
That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread At the moment the whole of Ossett is within the Wakefield constituency. Ossett is too big for one ward but too small for two wards hence part of Ossett is put into Horbury ward. Having the town split between a South Leeds seat and Wakefield makes absolutely no sense I plead not guilty m'lud.
The proposed Leeds S & Ossett seat contains both Ossett and Horbury wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 23, 2020 18:32:24 GMT
That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread At the moment the whole of Ossett is within the Wakefield constituency. Ossett is too big for one ward but too small for two wards hence part of Ossett is put into Horbury ward. Having the town split between a South Leeds seat and Wakefield makes absolutely no sense But that’s not Islington’s proposal?? Or my proposal - which keeps it in Wake |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 23, 2020 18:51:51 GMT
Tamworth used to be in Warwickshire so some sharing is acceptable, but I think you should prepare for offcut pots to be hurled your way by outraged residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the five towns of Stoke. They don't have pitchforks there, you see. Six towns, please. Bennett forgot (or deliberately omitted) Fenton, pseudonymised or not, from his books. And Stoke is surely one of the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent? |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 23, 2020 18:59:46 GMT
Six towns, please. Bennett forgot (or deliberately omitted) Fenton, pseudonymised or not, from his books. And Stoke is surely one of the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent? I've sometimes heard Stoke-upon-Trent used to distinguish the smaller "town" from the larger conurbation it is part of. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 23, 2020 19:09:58 GMT
Having worked in Leeds I understand your point from the snobs in Ossets point of view, but in a way saying that is actually being offensive to inner city Leeds dwellers. In reality is any wards can be put together to make seats. People objecting to certain wards being together because they have less in common, as they have through this thread, are in my opinion pandering to the historical segregation of our society. Why should Psephology do this? I'm genuinely interested! I am not posting in this design a constituency thread as mine wouldn't take much account of history or town ande city borders, they'd be more numbers and therefore panned.
Outer Sheffield with Derbyshire; East Sheffield with Rotherham; Newcastle-U-T with Gateshead, Newcastle-U-L with Stoke (where I have lived), I just don't see the problem.
I'm not sure pandering the right word. But for a constituency to make sense, for its validity to really work as a seat, the communities within the boundaries have to have some kind of relationship together. This forum has gone back and forth before about the need to connect internal parts of a seat together with some kind of valid association - bus routes, for example, school allocations another. The two different attitudes will argue their case for some time, I will wager. I understand communities can give a seat an added identity. I get transport links add to community sometimes. I also believe this makes it easier for lazy MPs to work with 1 type of constituent. I don't get why everyone is designing that have to fit this. I'm not saying it's wrong I just don't get it. After all it's just groups of people electing a representative so they don't really need anything in common with each other just a good representative for the all what they look like good or bad is irrelevant really. And wouldn't having more rural urban seats would give MPs a truer picture of life in this country not just one slice of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 23, 2020 19:11:16 GMT
Six towns, please. Bennett forgot (or deliberately omitted) Fenton, pseudonymised or not, from his books. And Stoke is surely one of the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent? If you specify 'City of Stoke-on-Trent' then it must refer to all six towns (and I've heard some people insisting on seven). |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,722
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 23, 2020 19:34:14 GMT
And Stoke is surely one of the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent? If you specify 'City of Stoke-on-Trent' then it must refer to all six towns (and I've heard some people insisting on seven). Which would the seventh be? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 23, 2020 19:38:07 GMT
If you specify 'City of Stoke-on-Trent' then it must refer to all six towns (and I've heard some people insisting on seven). Which would the seventh be? Trentham, once the most affluent part of Stoke (since overtaken by nouveau riche Meir Park). |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 23, 2020 19:45:47 GMT
Which would the seventh be? Trentham, once the most affluent part of Stoke (since overtaken by nouveau riche Meir Park). If Trentham is a town where is the town centre? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 23, 2020 19:48:10 GMT
It was a village, not a town, but clearly a distinct and separate part of the conurbation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 20:47:08 GMT
I'm not sure pandering the right word. But for a constituency to make sense, for its validity to really work as a seat, the communities within the boundaries have to have some kind of relationship together. This forum has gone back and forth before about the need to connect internal parts of a seat together with some kind of valid association - bus routes, for example, school allocations another. The two different attitudes will argue their case for some time, I will wager. I understand communities can give a seat an added identity. I get transport links add to community sometimes. I also believe this makes it easier for lazy MPs to work with 1 type of constituent. I don't get why everyone is designing that have to fit this. I'm not saying it's wrong I just don't get it. After all it's just groups of people electing a representative so they don't really need anything in common with each other just a good representative for the all what they look like good or bad is irrelevant really. And wouldn't having more rural urban seats would give MPs a truer picture of life in this country not just one slice of it. Very much a point of view share on here in times past. My view has always been that a constituency should hold internal logic. Drawing lines around a map and calling it a day is the reductum extreme of your argument and I know that's not what you mean. However, many members of this forum have submitted proposals and visited Boundary Commission public consultations, me included, and we all report back the same thing: members of the public care. They really care. And if you propose that Townsville is connected to Otherplace, they will let you know how much it truly matters. "Eccles South" sticks in my mind, I was at the Manchester public meeting where people from Eccles were very, very unhappy at how their town was divided between constituencies. I know - and you know - that Eccles was not literally split into two, or denied representation in Parliament, or anything else like that. But the perception is that an MP represents an area, and that area has to make sense. I do get your observation. It does seem a bit weird that a constituency is formed in that way. But "local ties" are there to be checked against amongst many other rules and regulations. And you know I like to try and follow those rules and regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 23, 2020 20:53:19 GMT
At the moment the whole of Ossett is within the Wakefield constituency. Ossett is too big for one ward but too small for two wards hence part of Ossett is put into Horbury ward. Having the town split between a South Leeds seat and Wakefield makes absolutely no sense I plead not guilty m'lud. The proposed Leeds S & Ossett seat contains both Ossett and Horbury wards.
As a life long Horbury resident this is a mindless proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 23, 2020 21:00:40 GMT
I see where people are coming from.
Taking it to the point of representing community areas properly? Fully? wouldn't you need a mix of single member constituencies for smaller ones and multi member constituencies for larger ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 23, 2020 21:01:26 GMT
I understand communities can give a seat an added identity. I get transport links add to community sometimes. I also believe this makes it easier for lazy MPs to work with 1 type of constituent. I don't get why everyone is designing that have to fit this. I'm not saying it's wrong I just don't get it. After all it's just groups of people electing a representative so they don't really need anything in common with each other just a good representative for the all what they look like good or bad is irrelevant really. And wouldn't having more rural urban seats would give MPs a truer picture of life in this country not just one slice of it. Very much a point of view share on here in times past. My view has always been that a constituency should hold internal logic. Drawing lines around a map and calling it a day is the reductum extreme of your argument and I know that's not what you mean. However, many members of this forum have submitted proposals and visited Boundary Commission public consultations, me included, and we all report back the same thing: members of the public care. They really care. And if you propose that Townsville is connected to Otherplace, they will let you know how much it truly matters. "Eccles South" sticks in my mind, I was at the Manchester public meeting where people from Eccles were very, very unhappy at how their town was divided between constituencies. I know - and you know - that Eccles was not literally split into two, or denied representation in Parliament, or anything else like that. But the perception is that an MP represents an area, and that area has to make sense. I do get your observation. It does seem a bit weird that a constituency is formed in that way. But "local ties" are there to be checked against amongst many other rules and regulations. And you know I like to try and follow those rules and regulations. It also feeds into (or from) the debate - often aired on here - about the role of the MP. There to represent constituents' interests or those of the collective nation? If the former (and I have deep reservations on that, but it seems a high priority to the public) then they can hardly represent a community of interest without representing a community. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 21:05:40 GMT
Very much a point of view share on here in times past. My view has always been that a constituency should hold internal logic. Drawing lines around a map and calling it a day is the reductum extreme of your argument and I know that's not what you mean. However, many members of this forum have submitted proposals and visited Boundary Commission public consultations, me included, and we all report back the same thing: members of the public care. They really care. And if you propose that Townsville is connected to Otherplace, they will let you know how much it truly matters. "Eccles South" sticks in my mind, I was at the Manchester public meeting where people from Eccles were very, very unhappy at how their town was divided between constituencies. I know - and you know - that Eccles was not literally split into two, or denied representation in Parliament, or anything else like that. But the perception is that an MP represents an area, and that area has to make sense. I do get your observation. It does seem a bit weird that a constituency is formed in that way. But "local ties" are there to be checked against amongst many other rules and regulations. And you know I like to try and follow those rules and regulations. It also feeds into (or from) the debate - often aired on here - about the role of the MP. There to represent constituents' interests or those of the collective nation? If the former (and I have deep reservations on that, but it seems a high priority to the public) then they can hardly represent a community of interest without representing a community. Yes and that debate has been run often on here. As long as the Boundary Commissions are instructed to form constituencies with local ties and within regions and within a certain range of electorate and so on and so on, constituencies will be formed as collections of communities and neighbours, and the conclusion there is an MP must therefore represent that constituency and the people within it. Another debate to perhaps resurrect in General Discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 24, 2020 8:53:33 GMT
Bristol/South Gloucestershire plan (New seat is Thornbury; Yate is the successor of Thornbury & Yate in this plan):  Bristol Central (safe Labour) Bristol South West (safe Labour) Bristol South East (safe Labour) Bristol North West (marginal Labour) Bristol North East and Filton (marginal Labour) Kingswood (semi-marginal Conservative) Yate (semi-marginal Conservative) Thornbury (safe Conservative) Stroud and Quedgeley (semi-marginal Conservative) Gloucester (marginal Conservative) Forest of Dean (very safe Conservative) Tewkesbury (very safe Conservative) Cheltenham (ultra-marginal Conservative) Cirencester (very safe Conservative) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2020 11:05:14 GMT
I've had another go at London, acknowledging a massive debt to Kevin Larkin's original plan but trying to get rid of some of the orphan wards.
Frustratingly when I try to upload the whole map I get a message saying it's too big so I'll try to load it in bits (this is the northwest section).
Barnet is a disaster area but otherwise it's not too bad.
|
|
