|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 28, 2020 18:33:58 GMT
Following on from the "constituencies you would like to see abolished" thread, let us talk about new constituency names we would like to see emerge from the new review, that have never been used before for Parliamentary constituencies.
I believe that notably, Milton Keynes Central, Marlow, Bicester, Tenterden, and Yate could emerge as new constituency names from the next review, and that these I would like to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 28, 2020 19:08:16 GMT
Following on from the "constituencies you would like to see abolished" thread, let us talk about new constituency names we would like to see emerge from the new review, that have never been used before for Parliamentary constituencies. I believe that notably, Milton Keynes Central, Marlow, Bicester, Tenterden, and Yate could emerge as new constituency names from the next review, and that these I would like to see. Doubtful about Tenterden. The western half of Ashford borough, maybe, though a lot of the looks to Ashford rather than Tenterden. but any constituecy named Tenterden would have to include a lot of what is currently Mid Kent and/ or Maidstone & The Weald, or even Tunbridge Wells, and very little of that has much connection withTenterden. Much better to be called Kent Weald or some such. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 29, 2020 11:23:26 GMT
Following on from the "constituencies you would like to see abolished" thread, let us talk about new constituency names we would like to see emerge from the new review, that have never been used before for Parliamentary constituencies. I believe that notably, Milton Keynes Central, Marlow, Bicester, Tenterden, and Yate could emerge as new constituency names from the next review, and that these I would like to see. Doubtful about Tenterden. The western half of Ashford borough, maybe, though a lot of the looks to Ashford rather than Tenterden. but any constituecy named Tenterden would have to include a lot of what is currently Mid Kent and/ or Maidstone & The Weald, or even Tunbridge Wells, and very little of that has much connection withTenterden. Much better to be called Kent Weald or some such. Better not to have the dustbin constituency at all and to take up the slack by having two Maidstones, with either, two Tonbridges or two Tunbridge Wells seats. Or similar arrangement to fit. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 29, 2020 15:43:12 GMT
Doubtful about Tenterden. The western half of Ashford borough, maybe, though a lot of the looks to Ashford rather than Tenterden. but any constituecy named Tenterden would have to include a lot of what is currently Mid Kent and/ or Maidstone & The Weald, or even Tunbridge Wells, and very little of that has much connection withTenterden. Much better to be called Kent Weald or some such. Better not to have the dustbin constituency at all and to take up the slack by having two Maidstones, with either, two Tonbridges or two Tunbridge Wells seats. Or similar arrangement to fit. ...or of course two Ashfords, given that Ashford is now substantially bigger than Maidstone, Tonbridge or TW? I wonder why you choose to describe the area I live in as a dustbin constituency? I assume you mean by that a constituency lacking a major town. The problem with a Wealden constituency is that it contains no urban area to speak of but has a number of small market towns/big villages... it might include Tenterden, Cranbrook, Headcorn, Staplehurst, Hawkhurst, etc. As such it would probably be overwhelmingly Tory... ah I see what you mean by a dustbin. Certainly the old Ashford constituency of the era 1885-1950 which included Cranbrook, Lydd and New Romney would now would not need that much adjustment to make two constituencies of Ashford West and Ashford East. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 29, 2020 16:10:36 GMT
Better not to have the dustbin constituency at all and to take up the slack by having two Maidstones, with either, two Tonbridges or two Tunbridge Wells seats. Or similar arrangement to fit. ...or of course two Ashfords, given that Ashford is now substantially bigger than Maidstone, Tonbridge or TW? Two Ashfords is an interesting idea. It has the advantage of shredding the current Canterbury constituency:  1 Dartford 72030 Yes 2 Gravesend 72423 Yes 3 Strood and Aylesford 75767 Yes [those Medway wards are so big that swapping the pairings seemed nicer than putting some of Rochester into C&A]4 Rochester and Chatham 70715 Yes 5 Gillingham and Rainham 71644 Yes 6 Sittingbourne and Sheppey 75171 Yes 7 Sevenoaks 70617 Yes 8 Tonbridge 72128 Yes 9 Tunbridge Wells 75382 Yes [unchanged; positively gusted!]10 Maidstone and Malling 74827 Yes 11 Leeds (Kent) 72668 Yes [definitely one for "constituency names I'd like to see"]12 Faversham 74131 Yes 13 Thanet North 69806 Yes 14 Thanet South 76032 Yes 15 Dover and Deal 72416 Yes 16 Folkestone and Hythe 75502 Yes 17 Ashford 72520 Yes 18 Canterbury and Ashford North 70661 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 29, 2020 16:18:31 GMT
3 Strood and Aylesford 75767 Yes [those Medway wards are so big that swapping the pairings seemed nicer than putting some of Rochester into C&A]4 Rochester and Chatham 70715 Yes It's a better arrangement than the current one anyway though I think i'd prefer to revive the Medway name for your Strood and Aylesford |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 29, 2020 19:52:27 GMT
Better not to have the dustbin constituency at all and to take up the slack by having two Maidstones, with either, two Tonbridges or two Tunbridge Wells seats. Or similar arrangement to fit. ...or of course two Ashfords, given that Ashford is now substantially bigger than Maidstone, Tonbridge or TW? I wonder why you choose to describe the area I live in as a dustbin constituency? I assume you mean by that a constituency lacking a major town. The problem with a Wealden constituency is that it contains no urban area to speak of but has a number of small market towns/big villages... it might include Tenterden, Cranbrook, Headcorn, Staplehurst, Hawkhurst, etc. As such it would probably be overwhelmingly Tory... ah I see what you mean by a dustbin. Certainly the old Ashford constituency of the era 1885-1950 which included Cranbrook, Lydd and New Romney would now would not need that much adjustment to make two constituencies of Ashford West and Ashford East. Stop being so obtuse and touchy. I consider all such 'left-over' constituencies (often termed 'Mid' something) as dustbin constituencies : not dustbin areas or dustbin places. They are often the most delightful bit of the county and inevitably of low population density and small communities. I like the area at stake here. I know all of it very well. And I used to live in Ashford when it was at its largest extent. This is no contest for me. Also I doubt that Ashford is bigger than Greater Maidstone? On the last census it was quite definitely smaller. Have 9-years made that much difference? And does that matter? Two Maidstones, Tonbridges or Tunbridge Wells seats makes a lot more sense to me than either a Wealden nothing or a double Ashford. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 29, 2020 22:19:53 GMT
carlton43 -I concede that on most counts you might reckon Maidstone is probably bigger than Ashford, although there are always definition problems - you maybe imply the problem by talking about "Greater Maidstone" as though it were like Greater London. Ashford Borough is now currently 138,000 and Maidstone Borough 172,000,(2020 figures) but in each case that includes a large rural hinterland. Ashford Town is now 78,000 and on some definitions (your greater Maidstone?) Maidstone urban area may be as much as 115,000, but I think the Ashford urban figure excludes some places where the population is now rocketing like Finberry and Chilmington. The really rural population of the Borough, including Tenterden is probably around 30,000 so on that basis there is very little in it but Maidstone may be just about the bigger. I confess I was on weaker ground including Maidstone in the argument but Ashford is clearly now much bigger than Tonbridge or Tunbridge Wells (unless you start thinking of Tonbridge/ Tunbridge Wells, etc as one big conurbation, which it nearly is. The 2021 census will be interesting. I doubt whether I'll be around for 2031 which might be different! I don't think I was being touchy btw. Whether obtuse is maybe for others to judge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 10:35:51 GMT
These are the "Manchester X" constituencies already used, could Chorlton, Didsbury, Piccadilly, or somewhere else join them?
Central, Gorton, Withington, East, North, North East, North West, South, South West, Ardwick, Blackley, Clayton, Exchange, Hulme, Moss Side, Platting, Cheetham, Wythenshawe, Openshaw.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 1, 2020 18:52:44 GMT
These are the "Manchester X" constituencies already used, could Chorlton, Didsbury, Piccadilly, or somewhere else join them? Central, Gorton, Withington, East, North, North East, North West, South, South West, Ardwick, Blackley, Clayton, Exchange, Hulme, Moss Side, Platting, Cheetham, Wythenshawe, Openshaw. Didsbury wouldn't be a bad shout. It has two wards to itself. Then again, so does Chorlton. Population boom prevents a Manchester Didsbury and Wythenshawe (so as to end the Sale split) from quite happening (adding all Wythenshawe wards plus both Didsburies ends up around 1,000 above quota). I was wondering how many of the Manchester places ending with '-ton' can be theoretically strung together? Manchester Chorlton, Withington and Gorton Ashton, Denton and Gorton Broughton, Moston and Middleton |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 1, 2020 18:59:37 GMT
These are the "Manchester X" constituencies already used, could Chorlton, Didsbury, Piccadilly, or somewhere else join them? Central, Gorton, Withington, East, North, North East, North West, South, South West, Ardwick, Blackley, Clayton, Exchange, Hulme, Moss Side, Platting, Cheetham, Wythenshawe, Openshaw. Didsbury wouldn't be a bad shout. It has two wards to itself. Then again, so does Chorlton. Population boom prevents a Manchester Didsbury and Wythenshawe (so as to end the Sale split) from quite happening (adding all Wythenshawe wards plus both Didsburies ends up around 1,000 above quota). We can thank the idiot Local Government Boundary Commission for creating 32 wards (of all stupid numbers) in a city with an entitlement of 5. 35 wards would have been so much better. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 1, 2020 19:25:02 GMT
Didsbury wouldn't be a bad shout. It has two wards to itself. Then again, so does Chorlton. Population boom prevents a Manchester Didsbury and Wythenshawe (so as to end the Sale split) from quite happening (adding all Wythenshawe wards plus both Didsburies ends up around 1,000 above quota). We can thank the idiot Local Government Boundary Commission for creating 32 wards (of all stupid numbers) in a city with an entitlement of 5. 35 wards would have been so much better. Why would the LGBCE take that into account? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 1, 2020 21:07:25 GMT
We can thank the idiot Local Government Boundary Commission for creating 32 wards (of all stupid numbers) in a city with an entitlement of 5. 35 wards would have been so much better. Why would the LGBCE take that into account? They did in 2002 for the Sheffield review. All parties argued that reducing the council from 30 wards to 28 wards would make future Parliamentary reviews a lot easier with an entitlement to 5.5 constituencies. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 1, 2020 22:24:11 GMT
Didsbury wouldn't be a bad shout. It has two wards to itself. Then again, so does Chorlton. Population boom prevents a Manchester Didsbury and Wythenshawe (so as to end the Sale split) from quite happening (adding all Wythenshawe wards plus both Didsburies ends up around 1,000 above quota). We can thank the idiot Local Government Boundary Commission for creating 32 wards (of all stupid numbers) in a city with an entitlement of 5. 35 wards would have been so much better. The LGBC can't prioritise Westminster considerations. (Especially when it's unclear whether there will be 650 or 600 seats and what the quota will be.) Anyway, there are places where the wards divvy up nicely between seats but they're slightly too big or too small on average. As anyone can see, and as Ron Johnston RIP and other experts have relentlessly argued, if there's going to be a 5% tolerance, the BCE has to allow itself the option of splitting wards in LA areas where the wards are too big for such a tolerance. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 2, 2020 17:28:46 GMT
We can thank the idiot Local Government Boundary Commission for creating 32 wards (of all stupid numbers) in a city with an entitlement of 5. 35 wards would have been so much better. The LGBC can't prioritise Westminster considerations. (Especially when it's unclear whether there will be 650 or 600 seats and what the quota will be.) Anyway, there are places where the wards divvy up nicely between seats but they're slightly too big or too small on average. As anyone can see, and as Ron Johnston RIP and other experts have relentlessly argued, if there's going to be a 5% tolerance, the BCE has to allow itself the option of splitting wards in LA areas where the wards are too big for such a tolerance. I actually think it's irresponsible of them to create mega-wards that militate that strongly against the basics of representative democracy of having everyone with the same councillor have the same MP and of having meaningful parliamentary constituencies – they amount to gerrymandering by stupid chance. The Local Government Commission has moderately good days (as it had in Birmingham). It should be prevented by statute from having its lazy Manchester-style days. |
|
Clark
Forum Regular
Posts: 750
|
Post by Clark on Jul 2, 2020 21:25:43 GMT
I'd like to see Liverpool Scotland-Exchange come back!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 16:52:21 GMT
These are the "Manchester X" constituencies already used, could Chorlton, Didsbury, Piccadilly, or somewhere else join them? Central, Gorton, Withington, East, North, North East, North West, South, South West, Ardwick, Blackley, Clayton, Exchange, Hulme, Moss Side, Platting, Cheetham, Wythenshawe, Openshaw. Didsbury wouldn't be a bad shout. It has two wards to itself. Then again, so does Chorlton. Population boom prevents a Manchester Didsbury and Wythenshawe (so as to end the Sale split) from quite happening (adding all Wythenshawe wards plus both Didsburies ends up around 1,000 above quota). I was wondering how many of the Manchester places ending with '-ton' can be theoretically strung together? Manchester Chorlton, Withington and Gorton Ashton, Denton and Gorton Broughton, Moston and Middleton Trying to draw genuine Manchester seats *in addition to* thinking about new additions to the constituency name map is not an easy task. Just a bit of fun, of course, and I am treating it as fun because this thread is related to Fantasy/Speculative threads SO with that in mind, I've been trying my best to satisfy the need to create credible constituencies with names we don't often see and well, hmm. 1 Manchester Withington 71625 Yes 2 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North 69547 Yes 3 Stockport and Burnage 67277 -17064 Manchester Harpurhey 74943 Yes 5 Manchester Central, Salford Quays and Spinningfields 76872 629 |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 3, 2020 17:30:32 GMT
Cities of Manchester and Salford!!
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 5, 2020 23:00:02 GMT
Buckingham and Bletchley
Lichfield and Stone
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 5, 2020 23:05:31 GMT
Remember, this is a country which until 1983 had a constituency called Eton and Slough.
|
|
