YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,341
|
Post by YL on Jul 11, 2020 18:12:50 GMT
Having now had a good look at the Yorkshire region, my preference is to move South Humberside to the East Midlands region, and in advance of the review I'll be writing to the BCE to suggest it. I agree, but good luck persuading the BCE...
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 11, 2020 18:16:44 GMT
Having now had a good look at the Yorkshire region, my preference is to move South Humberside to the East Midlands region, and in advance of the review I'll be writing to the BCE to suggest it. I agree, but good luck persuading the BCE... I'm sure the BCE will consider the mechanics of the review before they start it, especially as they are being prompted to do so by the parliamentary committee. The current boundary of this region is not helpful, and there isn't much (or any?) necessity to retain it.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,672
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 11, 2020 19:21:13 GMT
It is Leicester City that has ridiculous boundaries, far too small to cover the whole built up area and leaving out suburbs all around it to different local authorities. Awful way to govern a conurbation. That's common around England. The boundaries of Blackpool are drawn exceptionally tight. Leeds, on the other hand, wrap around every suburb it can grab.
It seems to be a general divide between met districts and non-met districts. The new 1974 metropolitan districts tended to sweep up huges amounts of surrounding countryside, whereas the non-metropolitan districts tended to be very tightly drawn. I don't know if there was supposed to be a rationale for this, as at the time they were both two-tier systems.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 11, 2020 20:17:57 GMT
My boundary plans for South Yorkshire (and Wakefield): Sheffield Hallam & Stocksbridge 72,646 (succeeds Sheffield Hallam; three-way marginal currently held by Labour) Sheffield Hillsborough 69,849 (succeeds Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough; safe Labour seat) Sheffield Central 76,242 (ultra-safe Labour seat; loses Manor Park ward but gains Crookes & Crosspool ward) Sheffield Heeley ~73,000 (very safe Labour seat; gains Birley ward but loses part of Richmond ward) Sheffield Brightside ~72,800 (very safe Labour seat; new seat) Maltby & Mosborough 71,683 (succeeds Rother Valley; marginal Labour seat) Rotherham West 70,959 (succeeds Rotherham; marginal Labour seat) Rotherham East 76,056 (succeeds Wentworth & Dearne; marginal Conservative seat) Pontefract & Castleford 72,392 (succeeds Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford; marginal Labour seat) Hemsworth & Dearne 72,929 (succeeds Hemsworth; marginal Labour seat) Wakefield ~69,500 (marginal Conserative seat; takes in small part of Horbury & South Ossett) Normanton ~74,800 (marginal Conservative seat; new seat) Penistone 71,832 (succeeds Penistone & Stocksbridge; marginal Conservative seat) Barnsley 71,463 (succeeds Barnsley Central; very safe Labour seat) Doncaster South 69,329 (succeeds Don Valley; marginal Conservative seat) Doncaster North 74,076 (marginal Labour seat) Doncaster Central 72,845 (marginal Labour seat). Abolished: Barnsley East, Sheffield South East (-2 Lab) New: Sheffield Brightside, Normanton (+1 Lab, +1 Con) Changed notionally from Con to Lab: Rother Valley [Maltby & Mosborough] Changed notionally from Lab to Con: Wentworth & Dearne [Rotherham East] Total: 12 Lab, 5 Con.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 11, 2020 20:18:35 GMT
That's common around England. The boundaries of Blackpool are drawn exceptionally tight. Leeds, on the other hand, wrap around every suburb it can grab.
It seems to be a general divide between met districts and non-met districts. The new 1974 metropolitan districts tended to sweep up huges amounts of surrounding countryside, whereas the non-metropolitan districts tended to be very tightly drawn. I don't know if there was supposed to be a rationale for this, as at the time they were both two-tier systems.
The radical proposals of 1969 were based on spheres of influence: major towns/cities and their surrounding areas. The proposals were implemented, more or less, in the conglomerations, but the proposals were abandoned in the more conservative mixed urban/rural areas, where the final districts were based more closely on what went before.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 11, 2020 20:32:16 GMT
Fine, but ban said electors from working, shopping or ever going into said urban authority. They use the urban area without contributing to it, like leeches. All sorts of people go into all sorts of urban authorities. People commute daily from Bournemouth to the City of London – it would be absurd to have a London blob covering half of England. The Bournemouth commuter and the Oadby commuter have no interest in another town's social services, schools, refuse collection, etc; they should not expect to vote or pay for them. You should think that one over...
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,341
|
Post by YL on Jul 11, 2020 20:49:20 GMT
That's common around England. The boundaries of Blackpool are drawn exceptionally tight. Leeds, on the other hand, wrap around every suburb it can grab. It seems to be a general divide between met districts and non-met districts. The new 1974 metropolitan districts tended to sweep up huges amounts of surrounding countryside, whereas the non-metropolitan districts tended to be very tightly drawn. I don't know if there was supposed to be a rationale for this, as at the time they were both two-tier systems. I imagine it has something to do with the minimum size requirements for Met districts. In South Yorkshire, once you've got the basic boundaries of the county settled, with a minimum population of 200,000 you're pretty much bound to end up with councils based on Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster and the rest carved up between them; Sheffield picked up Bradfield, Ecclesfield and Stocksbridge because there wasn't really anywhere else for them to go. If South Yorkshire, on the same boundaries, had become a non-metropolitan county you might well have seen, for example, a Penistone District merging the former Penistone RD, Penistone UD, Wortley RD, Dodworth UD and Stocksbridge UD, a Kiveton District merging the former Kiveton Park RD, Maltby UD and the main southern part of Rotherham RD, and a Wentworth District merging Rawmarsh, Swinton, Wath upon Dearne, Hoyland Nether and Wombwell UDs with the northern detached part of Rotherham RD, with Sheffield and Rotherham retaining their pre-1974 boundaries. (Are those good enough 1970s-style names?) In that scenario, Sheffield probably becomes a unitary in the 1990s still with the 1967 boundaries. Manchester and Liverpool could retain tightly drawn boundaries because their urban areas were big enough for the outlying areas to become Met districts in their own right.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,672
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 11, 2020 20:58:36 GMT
If South Yorkshire, on the same boundaries, had become a non-metropolitan county you might well have seen, for example, a Penistone District merging the former Penistone RD, Penistone UD, Wortley RD, Dodworth UD and Stocksbridge UD, a Kiveton District merging the former Kiveton Park RD, Maltby UD and the main southern part of Rotherham RD, and a Wentworth District merging Rawmarsh, Swinton, Wath upon Dearne, Hoyland Nether and Wombwell UDs with the northern detached part of Rotherham RD, with Sheffield and Rotherham retaining their pre-1974 boundaries. (Are those good enough 1970s-style names?) In that scenario, Sheffield probably becomes a unitary in the 1990s still with the 1967 boundaries. Basically that, but I think Sheffield would have taken Bradfield up to the Ewden Valley, and the rest of Grenoside and Ecclesfield villages. Without Stocksbridge and Ecclesfield the natural boundary is the Ewden/Wharcliffe/Greno Woods line. There was pushback against Sheffield trying to expand southwards, and "finishing off" the northern extensions would have been a natural result.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,672
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 11, 2020 21:04:22 GMT
My boundary plans for South Yorkshire (and Wakefield):
Your Hillsborough and your Brightside are pitchfork bait.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 11, 2020 21:21:53 GMT
My plans for West Yorkshire (Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford, and Leeds; messy due to large ward sizes necessitating splits to create reasonable constituencies): Huddersfield ~73,300 (safe Labour seat; gains Lindley ward but loses Dalton ward and part of Almondbury ward) Colne Valley 69,348 (marginal Conservative seat; loses Lindley ward) Dewsbury ~70,400 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) Spen Valley ~69,800 (succeeds Batley & Spen; marginal Conservative seat) Batley & Morley ~73,300 (new seat; marginal Labour seat) Leeds South ~72,000 (succeeds Leeds Central; ultra-safe Labour seat) Leeds East ~69,800 (gains part of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill; safe Labour seat) Leeds West ~73,300 (very safe Labour seat; gains part of Weetwood ward) Leeds North ~74,600 (succeeds Leeds North East; very safe Labour seat) Pudsey 72,029 (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged; marginal Conservative seat) Otley & Wetherby ~76,000 (succeeds Leeds North West; safe Conservative seat) Rothwell ~71,000 (succeeds Elmet & Rothwell; marginal Conservative seat) Sowerby 70,521 (succeeds Calder Valley; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Halifax & Brighouse 69,087 (succeeds Halifax; ultra-marginal Labour seat) Shipley 74,522 (semi-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Keighley 73,384 (marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Bradford East 74,205 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford West 71,585 (ultra-safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford South 69,667 (marginal Labour seat; unchanged) Abolished: Morley & Outwood (-1 Con) New: Batley & Morley (+1 Lab) Changed notionally from Con to Lab: Dewsbury. Changed notionally from Lab to Con: Batley & Spen [Spen Valley], Leeds North West [Otley & Wetherby]. Total: 11 Lab, 8 Con.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 11, 2020 21:31:10 GMT
My boundary plans for South Yorkshire (and Wakefield):
Your Hillsborough and your Brightside are pitchfork bait.
On that note, Sheffield Hillsborough did contain both Stocksbridge and Ecclesfield during its 1983-2010 incarnation; swapping Firth Park for Stocksbridge is on balance a better idea. This also keeps Sheffield Hallam and Sheffield Central relatively intact (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged), and the "new" seat would instead be Penistone (Stocksbridge, Ecclesfield East, and Ecclesfield West wards together comprise a majority of the present Penistone & Stocksbridge constituency). Sheffield will realistically have to be paired with Rotherham for the next review, unless the March 2020 electoral figures in South Yorkshire differ significantly enough from those of December 2019.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,927
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 11, 2020 21:34:50 GMT
My plans for West Yorkshire (Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford, and Leeds; messy due to large ward sizes necessitating splits to create reasonable constituencies): Huddersfield ~73,300 (safe Labour seat; gains Lindley ward but loses Dalton ward and part of Almondbury ward) Colne Valley 69,348 (marginal Conservative seat; loses Lindley ward) Dewsbury ~70,400 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) Spen Valley ~69,800 (succeeds Batley & Spen; marginal Conservative seat) Batley & Morley ~73,300 (new seat; marginal Labour seat) Leeds South ~72,000 (succeeds Leeds Central; ultra-safe Labour seat) Leeds East ~69,800 (gains part of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill; safe Labour seat) Leeds West ~73,300 (very safe Labour seat; gains part of Weetwood ward) Leeds North ~74,600 (succeeds Leeds North East; very safe Labour seat) Pudsey 72,029 (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged; marginal Conservative seat) Otley & Wetherby ~76,000 (succeeds Leeds North West; safe Conservative seat) Rothwell ~71,000 (succeeds Elmet & Rothwell; safe Conservative seat) Sowerby 70,521 (succeeds Calder Valley; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Halifax & Brighouse 69,087 (succeeds Halifax; ultra-marginal Labour seat) Shipley 74,522 (semi-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Keighley 73,384 (marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Bradford East 74,205 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford West 71,585 (ultra-safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford South 69,667 (marginal Labour seat; unchanged) Abolished: Morley & Outwood (-1 Con) New: Batley & Morley (+1 Lab) Changed notionally from Con to Lab: Dewsbury. Changed notionally from Lab to Con: Batley & Spen [Spen Valley], Leeds North West [Otley & Wetherby]. Total: 11 Lab, 8 Con. Would that Rothwell seat defitnely be safe Conservative?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 11, 2020 21:40:31 GMT
My plans for West Yorkshire (Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford, and Leeds; messy due to large ward sizes necessitating splits to create reasonable constituencies): Huddersfield ~73,300 (safe Labour seat; gains Lindley ward but loses Dalton ward and part of Almondbury ward) Colne Valley 69,348 (marginal Conservative seat; loses Lindley ward) Dewsbury ~70,400 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) Spen Valley ~69,800 (succeeds Batley & Spen; marginal Conservative seat) Batley & Morley ~73,300 (new seat; marginal Labour seat) Leeds South ~72,000 (succeeds Leeds Central; ultra-safe Labour seat) Leeds East ~69,800 (gains part of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill; safe Labour seat) Leeds West ~73,300 (very safe Labour seat; gains part of Weetwood ward) Leeds North ~74,600 (succeeds Leeds North East; very safe Labour seat) Pudsey 72,029 (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged; marginal Conservative seat) Otley & Wetherby ~76,000 (succeeds Leeds North West; safe Conservative seat) Rothwell ~71,000 (succeeds Elmet & Rothwell; safe Conservative seat) Sowerby 70,521 (succeeds Calder Valley; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Halifax & Brighouse 69,087 (succeeds Halifax; ultra-marginal Labour seat) Shipley 74,522 (semi-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Keighley 73,384 (marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Bradford East 74,205 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford West 71,585 (ultra-safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford South 69,667 (marginal Labour seat; unchanged) Abolished: Morley & Outwood (-1 Con) New: Batley & Morley (+1 Lab) Changed notionally from Con to Lab: Dewsbury. Changed notionally from Lab to Con: Batley & Spen [Spen Valley], Leeds North West [Otley & Wetherby]. Total: 11 Lab, 8 Con. Would that Rothwell seat defitnely be safe Conservative? On second thoughts, no, given the size of the Conservative majorities in Harewood and Wetherby (although this redrawn Rothwell seat does take in a substantial part of Harewood). Marginal Conservative, yes.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 12, 2020 10:22:44 GMT
My plans for West Yorkshire (Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford, and Leeds; messy due to large ward sizes necessitating splits to create reasonable constituencies): Huddersfield ~73,300 (safe Labour seat; gains Lindley ward but loses Dalton ward and part of Almondbury ward) Colne Valley 69,348 (marginal Conservative seat; loses Lindley ward) Dewsbury ~70,400 (ultra-marginal Labour seat) Spen Valley ~69,800 (succeeds Batley & Spen; marginal Conservative seat) Batley & Morley ~73,300 (new seat; marginal Labour seat) Leeds South ~72,000 (succeeds Leeds Central; ultra-safe Labour seat) Leeds East ~69,800 (gains part of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill; safe Labour seat) Leeds West ~73,300 (very safe Labour seat; gains part of Weetwood ward) Leeds North ~74,600 (succeeds Leeds North East; very safe Labour seat) Pudsey 72,029 (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged; marginal Conservative seat) Otley & Wetherby ~76,000 (succeeds Leeds North West; safe Conservative seat) Rothwell ~71,000 (succeeds Elmet & Rothwell; safe Conservative seat) Sowerby 70,521 (succeeds Calder Valley; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Halifax & Brighouse 69,087 (succeeds Halifax; ultra-marginal Labour seat) Shipley 74,522 (semi-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Keighley 73,384 (marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) Bradford East 74,205 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford West 71,585 (ultra-safe Labour seat; unchanged) Bradford South 69,667 (marginal Labour seat; unchanged) Abolished: Morley & Outwood (-1 Con) New: Batley & Morley (+1 Lab) Changed notionally from Con to Lab: Dewsbury. Changed notionally from Lab to Con: Batley & Spen [Spen Valley], Leeds North West [Otley & Wetherby]. Total: 11 Lab, 8 Con. Would that Rothwell seat defitnely be safe Conservative? This is a perfect example of what typical imperfect diction and consequent imperfect pronunciation does to spelling as it become absorbed into our thinking. This word is not Deaf Nit Lee Or Deaf It Nelly But Deaf In It Lee And, Yes, it does matter and at the moment matters far more than the abhorrent politics. Yes, that is a comment on me; but even more a comment on how I feel about the state of politics.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 12, 2020 10:43:51 GMT
Would that Rothwell seat defitnely be safe Conservative? This is a perfect example of what typical imperfect diction and consequent imperfect pronunciation does to spelling as it become absorbed into our thinking. This word is not Deaf Nit Lee Or Deaf It Nelly But Deaf In It Lee And, Yes, it does matter and at the moment matters far more than the abhorrent politics. Yes, that is a comment on me; but even more a comment on how I feel about the state of politics. Correct spelling was drummed into us at school. We had spelling books and were encouraged to learn and spell new words every day. Every classroom had books and every child (even those with disabilities) could read and write. A few teachers were less tolerant and would use less humane methods but, by and large, it worked. Weekly spelling tests. Reading aloud. Writing stories. Very happy times. Not the private sector. Not a wealthy area. Nothing magical. What went wrong?
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 12, 2020 12:16:53 GMT
Would that Rothwell seat defitnely be safe Conservative? This is a perfect example of what typical imperfect diction and consequent imperfect pronunciation does to spelling as it become absorbed into our thinking. This word is not Deaf Nit Lee Or Deaf It Nelly But Deaf In It Lee And, Yes, it does matter and at the moment matters far more than the abhorrent politics. Yes, that is a comment on me; but even more a comment on how I feel about the state of politics. Sometimes it is not bad spelling, just bad typing, hence the expression "typo". Personally, I often mis-type words where one is a "left hand letter" and one is a "right hand letter" and I type them in the wrong order. "foramt" is a common mistake for me. Definently.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 12, 2020 12:40:40 GMT
My plans for North Yorkshire, and revised plans for Kirklees and Leeds (to make up for North Yorkshire being too large for 6 seats but not large enough for 7 I had to add suburbs of Leeds; only the constituencies of Leeds affected are shown; Leeds North, Leeds West and Pudsey remain as per my original plan): Huddersfield ~76,000 (very safe Labour seat, gains Lindley ward but loses part of Almondbury ward) Colne Valley 69,348 (marginal Conservative seat) Dewsbury ~71,500 (marginal Labour seat) Batley & Morley ~76,000 (succeeds Morley & Outwood; marginal Labour seat) Spen Valley ~71,800 (succeeds Batley & Spen; marginal Conservative seat, contains part of Batley West) Elmet & Rothwell ~72,000 (very safe Conservative seat, loses part of Garforth & Swillington ward) Leeds East ~72,900 (safe Labour seat) Leeds South 76,200 (succeeds Leeds Central; ultra-safe Labour seat) Ripon 75,220 (succeeds Leeds North West; very safe Conservative seat) Harrogate & Knaresborough 71,416 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) Selby & Ainsty 73,738 (very safe Conservative seat) Skipton & Richmond 74,245 (succeeds Skipton & Ripon; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Northallerton & Thirsk 75,616 (succeeds Richmond [Yorks]; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Malton 75,481 (succeeds Thirsk & Malton; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Scarborough & Whitby 72,791 (unchanged; safe Conservative seat) Halifax ~74,500 (adds part of Hipperholme & Lightcliffe ward; marginal Labour seat) Calder Valley ~73,400 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) York Central 70,735 (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged; very safe Labour seat) York Outer 71,912 (adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged; safe Conservative seat) Bridlington ~75,700 (succeeds East Yorkshire; ultra-safe Conservative seat; loses part of Wolds Weighton ward) Beverley & Holderness ~76,100 (ultra-safe Conservative seat; loses part of Minster & Woodmansey ward) Goole & Howden ~75,000 (succeeds Haltemprice & Howden; very safe Conservative seat) Hull South 75,614 (succeeds Hull East; marginal Labour seat) Hull North 75,115 (semi-marginal Labour seat) Hull West & Haltemprice ~71,500 (succeeds Hull West & Hessle; marginal Conservative seat) Scunthorpe 73,887 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) Brigg 73,526 (succeeds Cleethorpes; safe Conservative seat) Grimsby & Cleethorpes (succeeds Great Grimsby; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Abolished: Brigg & Goole (not Morley & Outwood; -1 Con) Changed from Con to Lab: Dewsbury, Morley & Outwood [Batley & Morley]. Changed from Lab to Con: Batley & Spen [Spen Valley], Hull West & Hessle [Hull West & Haltemprice]. Total for North Yorkshire, Kirklees, and Leeds: 21 Con, 10 Lab.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 12, 2020 13:09:42 GMT
As much in the spirit of boundary porn as anything else, here's a non-split scheme for W Yorks + Barnsley.
Plus points: - Bradford kept together for five whole seats
- And as a bonus, the Wharfedale-in-Skipton anomaly is sorted out
- Calderdale/Kirkless/Barnsley treated together for 9 seats
- Axholme kept together
Minus points: - One that may not be immediately obvious is that because only one N Yorks ward (Tadcaster) is used, while Wetherby ward escapes into N Yorks, we are left with N Yorks (with Wetherby and without Tadcaster) + York + ERY + Hull = 1056880 = 14.55 and only 14 seats available. Possibly it can be done but I'll leave the pleasure to others.
- The plan's other faults are many and grievous so I'm not going to list them except to single out the Batley seat (Batley x 2 + Birstall, Liversedge, Hipperholme, Northowram).
Edited to add: For the avoidance of doubt, this not my preferred option; I'm sticking to the plan I posted many pages upthread.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 12, 2020 13:24:29 GMT
As much in the spirit of boundary porn as anything else, here's a non-split scheme for W Yorks + Barnsley.
Plus points: - Bradford kept together for five whole seats
- And as a bonus, the Wharfedale-in-Skipton anomaly is sorted out
- Calderdale/Kirkless/Barnsley treated together for 9 seats
- Axholme kept together
Minus points: - One that may not be immediately obvious is that because only one N Yorks ward (Tadcaster) is used, while Wetherby ward escapes into N Yorks, we are left with N Yorks (with Wetherby and without Tadcaster) + York + ERY + Hull = 1056880 = 14.55 and only 14 seats available. Possibly it can be done but I'll leave the pleasure to others.
- The plan's other faults are many and grievous so I'm not going to list them except to single out the Batley seat (Batley x 2 + Birstall, Liversedge, Hipperholme, Northowram).
Edited to add: For the avoidance of doubt, this not my preferred option; I'm sticking to the plan I posted many pages upthread.
"Boundary Porn" - the love that has only a five per cent tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jul 12, 2020 15:31:05 GMT
I agree, but good luck persuading the BCE... I'm sure the BCE will consider the mechanics of the review before they start it, especially as they are being prompted to do so by the parliamentary committee. The current boundary of this region is not helpful, and there isn't much (or any?) necessity to retain it. So far as the BCE are concerned, there is a reason for retaining it that they may well find persuasive - one way the BCE seems to keep its costs down to within its operational budget is to have just one techie in-house, and then outsource as much of its technical requirements as it can so that the sole techie can handle everything that still does have to be handled in-house (including all technical communications with their outsourcees). And just as it tends to use the Ordnance Survey for anything related to mapping or geographical information, it seems to use the ONS for statistical and data-processing requirements. And the ONS is still using these regions, one way or another, as their standard way of grouping local authorities together for regional statistics. That's probably just because the ONS has been using these regions for twenty years or so, since the last time any UK government seems to have really wanted to do enough with regional policy that it really cared about which regions the ONS should be using, and finds its work easier if it keeps using them. And I'm sure that the ONS would use different regions for a job if a client was prepared to pay them enough extra to make it worth their doing so. But I rather doubt that the BCE will be willing to spend the extra money to convince the ONS to use a bespoke classification (even if, as is likely, they would only charge an extra £50,000 or so for the customisation). Oh, and remember that those regions are probably also what the Ordnance Survey has built into its standard regional mapping layers.
|
|