|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 25, 2021 21:23:50 GMT
Shall we put the site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge into Kensington and Chelsea as well?
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 25, 2021 22:39:58 GMT
Shall we put the site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge into Kensington and Chelsea as well?
It would only be slightly more stupid than having a borough of Kensington and Chelsea that doesn't include Stamford Bridge stadium.
The ground is right up against the border and there are, presumably, no electors living in the stadium. How hard would it be to draw the boundary around Stamford Bridge to include it in the 'correct' local authority? It's not going to change anyones representation or increase councillor workloads or anything like that. Plus H&F already boasts TWO other big football clubs. It's not a game of Monopoly where you try to collect a set at others expense FFS.
This is on a par with yesterday's discussion about Figges Marsh ward. Why can't people go on protests about this sort of thing instead of the usual predictable woke shite? I'd happily take a blast from a water cannon to make a stand against fuckywucky boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 26, 2021 0:14:53 GMT
There is no anomaly here. We are constructing modern constituencies on the basis of contiguity and logic. What happened in 1066 does not bloody matter and is relevant to nothing at all. Hastings is the name of the town and thus provides the name of the constituency. It is not large enough by itself. So one casts around for obvious join-ons like St. Leonards and Ore, and then to places close that are similar. Much of hastings is a drab low class utter dump, rather like Hove. The good days are long gone. Battle is very small and rather nice and in no way at all anything like Hastings. And Rye has down market bits but (as devotees of 'Foyle's War' and 'Mapp and Lucia') will know, it is generally much nicer and well up-market from Hastings. It is close in proximity but not a natural demographic fit. Like much of Sussex, constituency structure is quite difficult. A battle 1000-years ago is not a point to consider. It really isn't.
Yes but THE TOWN IS NAMED AFTER THE BATTLE. There is no getting away from that.
There is lots of stuff named after things from 1000 years ago or more that survives to this day in placenames. This just happens to be a particularly well-known one. It's one of very the few historical events from 1000 years ago that most ordinary people could actually name.
But this is a broader point about aesthetics, common sense, and what traditionally belongs where. I'd have thought you'd have at least some sympathy towards that view?
If the Borough of Dover didn't include the famous White Cliffs, that would be just as stupid. A Cambridge seat drawn to exclude all the universities would be ridiculous. As would a seat named after a river that didn't flow through it. And so on.
The Borough of Hastings not including the site of the actual battle is absolutely fucktarded. And I suspect I'll be waiting a long time to hear an argument that convinces me otherwise.
How many schoolchildren, when asked about the battle of Hastings, would immediately say 'ah yes, it famously took place outside of Hastings, in what is now the town of Battle, which is of course part of Rother District'?
Probably not even schoolchildren in the Hastings area. If they even attend school there.
Virtually all of that is pure and applied bollocks. I am ashamed for you having written it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 11:03:41 GMT
Shall we put the site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge into Kensington and Chelsea as well?
It would only be slightly more stupid than having a borough of Kensington and Chelsea that doesn't include Stamford Bridge stadium.
The ground is right up against the border and there are, presumably, no electors living in the stadium. How hard would it be to draw the boundary around Stamford Bridge to include it in the 'correct' local authority? It's not going to change anyones representation or increase councillor workloads or anything like that. Plus H&F already boasts TWO other big football clubs. It's not a game of Monopoly where you try to collect a set at others expense FFS.
This is on a par with yesterday's discussion about Figges Marsh ward. Why can't people go on protests about this sort of thing instead of the usual predictable woke shite? I'd happily take a blast from a water cannon to make a stand against fuckywucky boundaries.
Chelsea FC was created specifically to put a football team in that stadium and numerous names were considered and disregarded before they settled on Chelsea |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 26, 2021 13:06:21 GMT
Shall we put the site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge into Kensington and Chelsea as well?
It would only be slightly more stupid than having a borough of Kensington and Chelsea that doesn't include Stamford Bridge stadium.
The ground is right up against the border and there are, presumably, no electors living in the stadium. How hard would it be to draw the boundary around Stamford Bridge to include it in the 'correct' local authority? It's not going to change anyones representation or increase councillor workloads or anything like that. Plus H&F already boasts TWO other big football clubs. It's not a game of Monopoly where you try to collect a set at others expense FFS.
This is on a par with yesterday's discussion about Figges Marsh ward. Why can't people go on protests about this sort of thing instead of the usual predictable woke shite? I'd happily take a blast from a water cannon to make a stand against fuckywucky boundaries.
What on earth is pulling your strings over this nonsense? Why does it matter where a football ground (containing no electors at all) is placed; or a disused abbey and a green area (containing no electors) where a battle took place between two lots of foreigners 1000 years ago? Why? |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 26, 2021 13:30:52 GMT
It would only be slightly more stupid than having a borough of Kensington and Chelsea that doesn't include Stamford Bridge stadium.
The ground is right up against the border and there are, presumably, no electors living in the stadium. How hard would it be to draw the boundary around Stamford Bridge to include it in the 'correct' local authority? It's not going to change anyones representation or increase councillor workloads or anything like that. Plus H&F already boasts TWO other big football clubs. It's not a game of Monopoly where you try to collect a set at others expense FFS.
This is on a par with yesterday's discussion about Figges Marsh ward. Why can't people go on protests about this sort of thing instead of the usual predictable woke shite? I'd happily take a blast from a water cannon to make a stand against fuckywucky boundaries.
What on earth is pulling your strings over this nonsense? Why does it matter where a football ground (containing no electors at all) is placed; or a disused abbey and a green area (containing no electors) where a battle took place between two lots of foreigners 1000 years ago? Why?
By that reductive logic, why does the name of anything matter? Why not rename the City of London 'Arbroath', rename Arbroath to Vilnius, but give it a postcode of QX, reclassify Vilnius as an exclave of sub-Saharan Africa, and create seven new Saharas all over the world.
Fairly obviously BECAUSE NAMES MATTER. To me at least. (I'm less bothered about constituency names which are fairly transient and more arbitrary, but County and Borough names should, in theory at least, be named to last for decades.)
I haven't seen a single argument from you or anybody else that can justify this kind of atrocious naming. Not one.
Have a go..
Make a case for a City of Westminster that doesn't contain the Palace of Westminster, or a Borough of Lambeth that doesn't include Lambeth Palace. A Southwark without Southwark Cathedral in it.
Do these things not sound just a tiny bit fucktarded to you? Does your commitment to cultural conservatism have absolutely zero respect for names that have lasted hundreds of years.
The town of Battle is named after the battle of Hastings. The single most defining feature of Hastings is that there was once a 'battle of'. It is therefore breathtakingly stupid that Battle has ended up in a mish-mash LA named after a small river, when it could be a part of Hastings. My preference would probably be for a larger unitary Hastings that also included Bexhill, because I'm in favour of streamlining local government anyway, but that's a side issue.
I know I'm not the only person to whom this kind of stuff matters. I saw this morning that they've finally stopped calling Oslo Torp airpot 'Oslo', which it never should've been in the first place given that it's about 75 miles away from Oslo.
Also, Marathon bars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 26, 2021 13:54:22 GMT
It's absolutely ludicrous to be making such an argument while declaring your allegiance to a political party that's based 9,000 miles away in a completely different country, continent, and political system.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 26, 2021 13:54:23 GMT
What on earth is pulling your strings over this nonsense? Why does it matter where a football ground (containing no electors at all) is placed; or a disused abbey and a green area (containing no electors) where a battle took place between two lots of foreigners 1000 years ago? Why?
By that reductive logic, why does the name of anything matter? Why not rename the City of London 'Arbroath', rename Arbroath to Vilnius, but give it a postcode of QX, reclassify Vilnius as an exclave of sub-Saharan Africa, and create seven new Saharas all over the world.
Fairly obviously BECAUSE NAMES MATTER. To me at least. (I'm less bothered about constituency names which are fairly transient and more arbitrary, but County and Borough names should, in theory at least, be named to last for decades.)
I haven't seen a single argument from you or anybody else that can justify this kind of atrocious naming. Not one.
Have a go..
Make a case for a City of Westminster that doesn't contain the Palace of Westminster, or a Borough of Lambeth that doesn't include Lambeth Palace. A Southwark without Southwark Cathedral in it.
Do these things not sound just a tiny bit fucktarded to you? Does your commitment to cultural conservatism have absolutely zero respect for names that have lasted hundreds of years.
The town of Battle is named after the battle of Hastings. The single most defining feature of Hastings is that there was once a 'battle of'. It is therefore breathtakingly stupid that Battle has ended up in a mish-mash LA named after a small river, when it could be a part of Hastings. My preference would probably be for a larger unitary Hastings that also included Bexhill, because I'm in favour of streamlining local government anyway, but that's a side issue.
I know I'm not the only person to whom this kind of stuff matters. I saw this morning that they've finally stopped calling Oslo Torp airpot 'Oslo', which it never should've been in the first place given that it's about 75 miles away from Oslo.
Also, Marathon bars.
I have read that through very carefully twice. It is impossible for me to even begin to to try and combat that form of thinking. So I shall not. I do like continuity in names and short names and names that have wide meaning. So I have personal mental rules of preference. But I am not concerned at all by many things that exercise many members here. I prefer Gravesend to Gravesham for what I see to be obvious common sense reasons. I prefer Anglesey and Western Isles to unknown difficult to pronounce names. I prefer just Rochester, just Tonbridge, just Maidstone, just Chatham. I prefer not to have nonsense like "...and the Deepings". I dont care if part of a constituency is 'the other side' of an arterial road, a motoway, a railway line or a river; because I have lived in by far the largest constituency of all that had coasts on the Atlantic and the North Sea and where I could see from the kitchen window a place a few miles away over the sea where I assisted a neighbour to buy chickens. We went there by road and it was a 200-mile round trip involving single track roads, a sea bridge (and once involved two ferries and a toll). But it was a cohesive and sensible constituency with more binding it together than many only 5% of that size. What matters is a sense of place and some cohesive feeling of contiguity and a name all recognize as being short, sensible, acceptable to insiders and identifiable to outsiders. So no Sefton, no Mole Valley, no Waveney or Clwyd nonsenses. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 26, 2021 14:06:39 GMT
I prefer Gravesend to Gravesham for what I see to be obvious common sense reasons. I think now we may be getting somewhere.
You're familiar with that part of the country, so lets say that the Borough of Gravesham is renamed Gravesend, and all is well and good.
Think of one or two things that define Gravesend for you. What does Gravesend mean? What does it mean to be from or of Gravesend? What are the very things that make Gravesend Gravesendy?
Now imagine that - despite a Borough of Gravesend existing - these places or things that define Gravesend to you are actually excluded from that particular LA and instead put into 'Dartford' or 'Medway' or 'Thurrock' or 'Plymouth' or 'Westphalia' or 'Sea of Tranquility'.
What would it take for a Gravesend to not be commonly sensical to you?
There are people who submit countless representations to the various commissions arguing the toss over which ward one side of a backstreet should be in. I'd posit that it's far less obsessive and radical to hold a belief that the site of the Battle of Hastings should, you know, actually be included in Hastings!
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 26, 2021 14:18:43 GMT
I prefer Gravesend to Gravesham for what I see to be obvious common sense reasons. I think now we may be getting somewhere.
You're familiar with that part of the country, so lets say that the Borough of Gravesham is renamed Gravesend, and all is well and good.
Think of one or two things that define Gravesend for you. What does Gravesend mean? What does it mean to be from or of Gravesend? What are the very things that make Gravesend Gravesendy?
Now imagine that - despite a Borough of Gravesend existing - these places or things that define Gravesend to you are actually excluded from that particular LA and instead put into 'Dartford' or 'Medway' or 'Thurrock' or 'Plymouth' or 'Westphalia' or 'Sea of Tranquility'.
What would it take for a Gravesend to not be commonly sensical to you?
There are people who submit countless representations to the various commissions arguing the toss over which ward one side of a backstreet should be in. I'd posit that it's far less obsessive and radical to hold a belief that the site of the Battle of Hastings should, you know, actually be included in Hastings!
Nothing at all really. It would seem odd for a Gravesend constituency not to have a Thames riverbank or any wharves or piers, but in no way 'fatal' or hurtful to my sensibilities. If the football ground was in Dartford I could not care less. Nor would I mind if the 'Grave of Princess Pocahontas' strayed into Rochester constituency. Nor if the easterly bridge supports for the Dartford Bridge happened to be in Gravesend constituency. None of that matters at all in any way to anyone. Does it? |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 26, 2021 14:38:09 GMT
I think now we may be getting somewhere.
You're familiar with that part of the country, so lets say that the Borough of Gravesham is renamed Gravesend, and all is well and good.
Think of one or two things that define Gravesend for you. What does Gravesend mean? What does it mean to be from or of Gravesend? What are the very things that make Gravesend Gravesendy?
Now imagine that - despite a Borough of Gravesend existing - these places or things that define Gravesend to you are actually excluded from that particular LA and instead put into 'Dartford' or 'Medway' or 'Thurrock' or 'Plymouth' or 'Westphalia' or 'Sea of Tranquility'.
What would it take for a Gravesend to not be commonly sensical to you?
There are people who submit countless representations to the various commissions arguing the toss over which ward one side of a backstreet should be in. I'd posit that it's far less obsessive and radical to hold a belief that the site of the Battle of Hastings should, you know, actually be included in Hastings!
Nothing at all really. It would seem odd for a Gravesend constituency not to have a Thames riverbank or any wharves or piers, but in no way 'fatal' or hurtful to my sensibilities. If the football ground was in Dartford I could not care less. Nor would I mind if the 'Grave of Princess Pocahontas' strayed into Rochester constituency. Nor if the easterly bridge supports for the Dartford Bridge happened to be in Gravesend constituency. None of that matters at all in any way to anyone. Does it?
A lot of these things matter quite a lot to a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. Proponents of 'Traditional Counties' have been around ever since the 1974 review started changing things. People feel strongly that certain places should have certain names, and that places should exist within other places and so on. Some obsessively lobby for things to be made a certain way because they are unhappy with the current arrangements. Even lots of 'ordinary' people who aren't political or geographical obsessives like to say that they live in Middlesex or Surrey or Kent, when they have been in Greater London for nearly 60 years now.
I'm relatively relaxed and unobsessed by it. I can see that there are often good (or at least neutral) reasons for making administrative changes and altering boundaries and changing names, and my own personal preferences are largely aesthetic. I sometimes refuse to use the 'new names' because I prefer the old 'right and proper' ones, consider the change to be arbitrary in the first place, and take a sense of delight in winding people up. I also see value in preserving the past. These to me seem like naturally Conservative values, and I'm fairly surprised that you appear to lack them altogether.
I'm not opposed to deliberate anomalies for the sake of amusement either. The only thing that annoys me - and the site of the battle of Hastings not being in Hastings is a prime example - is where the opportunity for a quick win for the sake of common sense and aesthetic satisfaction, as I see it, is wilfully ignored. That I cannot help but see as blunderingly stupid and potentially unhelpful. Opal Fruits shouldn't have had their name changed. Charing Cross Hospital probably should because it's nowhere near what most people consider to be Charing Cross.
Drawing a boundary around an area with no electors so that the space in question becomes a part of something that traditionally shares its name would seem like the quickest of quick wins to me.
One thing these discussions over the past few days has done is firm up my own views on the topic, which has been useful. You might be surprised to know that I really am not one of the boundary obsessives, and spend relatively little time thinking about it. On the Merton ward boundaries thread, you'll see that I wasn't even aware the boundaries had been finalised, having spent five minutes sending in my 'common sense' suggestion and then forgotten about it.
I shall probably forget about Hastings within a day or two too. But I don't think I'll ever not think that the current LA boundary is fucktarded, mongcunted and hyperwanky. And shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 26, 2021 15:05:35 GMT
Well. Let's give it a rest and calm the language back from apoplexy.
If Battle and environs end up in Hastings constituency I shall be in no way worried. And if it does not I shall be in no way worried either.
And, no old chap, the town of Hastings is NOT named after our most famous battle, because that would at the time have been regarded as the Battle of Senlac Field because it did NOT take place at Hastings at all. Latterly it would be termed Battle of Hastings because that was the nearest place known in general, known to others, and because Battle was not a place until an Abbey was formed on the site and took the name 'Battle' rather than Senlac.
But you would rather not know any of that would you?
And yes I do know Dartford, Gravesend, Rochester, Chatham, Maidstone, Battle, Hastings and the whole area really well. I have lived in and was schooled at and started voting in one, worked in three of them, went to college in another of them and have viewed the Abbey and walked the battlefield often. I am a real conservative. History, place and names do mean a lot to me. But on all this you are plainly and clearly muddled and wrong.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 26, 2021 18:07:10 GMT
And, no old chap, the town of Hastings is NOT named after our most famous battle
WTF? Nobody said that. I said the town of Battle was named after the battle. That's why it's called battle. Because there was a battle. Where the town is now.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 26, 2021 18:20:15 GMT
And, no old chap, the town of Hastings is NOT named after our most famous battle
WTF? Nobody said that. I said the town of Battle was named after the battle. That's why it's called battle. Because there was a battle. Where the town is now.
Well, if the battle happened in Battle, it should be named the Battle of Battle to be exact and "Battle of Hastings" is a misnomer. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Nov 30, 2022 17:02:58 GMT
2021 Census
Owner occupied 60.1% 402/573
Private rented 26.1% 91/573
Social rented 13.8% 345/573
White 92.3%
Black 1.2%
Asian 2.5%
Managerial & professional 29.7% 349/573
Routine & Semi-routine 24.5% 264/573
Degree level 28.7% 369/573
No qualifications 20.1% 190/573
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 12, 2022 19:26:39 GMT
The boundaries here will return more or less to the status quo ante (the 1983-2010 boundaries) as about 3,500 voters in the inland part of the seat (Brede Valley) are returned to Bexhill & Battle. This will not be without political significance as this is a strong Conservative area and probably cuts their majority in half. 2019 Notional Result | Con | 24397 | 47.9% | | Lab | 22324 | 43.9% | | LD | 3657 | 7.2% | | Oth | 528 | 1.0% |
| | | | | | | | Majority | 2073 | 4.1% |
|
|
