|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 10, 2021 20:44:32 GMT
One thing that is really annoying me is all these needlessly extended names such as Ludlow and Bridgnorth, Wantage and Didcot, Copeland and West Lakes, etc. "Ludlow & Bridgnorth" is one of the excellentisms of the proposals. My sister used to live in Bridgnorth. Bridgnorth and Ludlow are the two main towns of the constituency, and they both have populations of about 11,000. It is not logical for the name to focus on "Ludlow" on its own. The proposed name of "Ludlow & Bridgnorth" is a great improvement. However, I would have preferred it if the Commission had grasped the nettle by the horns and just called it "Shropshire South" instead. Just call it Cleobury, so that ignorant broadcasters can make a mess of it.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jun 10, 2021 21:03:05 GMT
I do like this - but the whole idea of trying to predict Finchley and Muswell Hill on the basis of December 2019 GE results I have removed the rest of your post as it is an entirely superfluous stating of the obvious. I have made no attempt to 'predict' the result of the next election in this constituency (which very likely (and I hope)) will not even exist in this form. If I were to bother to offer a prediction it would be that it will likely be a comfortable Labour win, but that is not the purpose of notional results - they are simply to show how a constituency likely and roughly voted at the previous election. The fact that other predictions indicate an extremely close three way result suggests these aren't wide of the mark. Constantly needing to explain that notional results are not a prediction of a future election result really shouldn't happen on a forum like this. Sorry. I was 99% certain that you knew precisely what you were doing when you wrote your post, and that you would be well aware of at least the general points I was making. But I didn't want to belabour that point, and I thus thoughtlessly wandered into the opposite error of not mentioning it at all. Having said that, I am nothing like so confident that that is true of all our colleagues here. Finchley and Muswell Hill also looks like a classic case of notional results that are effectively useless as predictions.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,385
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 10, 2021 21:21:18 GMT
In regards to the names I actually don't mind the long unwieldy names, I mean their not great but if we're gonna have a system that facilitates the creation of such uncohesive seats that warrant such names I'd rather they own up to the fact and call the seat "A central, B North and C" rather than papering over the absurd boundaries by invoking some cryptic nonsensical name lifted from the Old Testament that's meaningless to everybody The way things were going I was honestly expecting the commission to propose the seats of "Cranmer's Rest" "Roads to Eboracum" "Danelaw North" and "Scottish Marshes" (bonus points for whoever can guess what those seats modern equivalent would be) The inconsistency when it comes to naming is quite impressive. I would like to congratulate the commission on consigning to the history books Eddisbury and Weaver Vale, plus several of the obscure 1970s local authority names such as Bassetlaw (-> Worksop and Retford), Charnwood (Mid Leicestershire), Halton (split in half across the river), South Lincolnshire instead of the comical South Holland and the Deepings, and I'm particularly pleased that they directly renamed Wyre Forest to Kidderminster and Erewash to Ilkeston and Long Eaton despite there being no boundary changes whatsoever, which is quite unprecedented really. Yet neighbouring Amber Valley remains, Accrington remains Hyndburn, and in other areas well-known names disappear in favour of yet more Little Dribbling and Giggleswick names, particularly in the south. 'Hedge End' sounds like something from fiction (imagine 'Con, Hedge End', after someone's name on the news?), at first glance the town of Reading appears to have shrunk and seemingly is only deserving of one seat when much of it is now 'Early and Woodley'. Same goes for Milton Keynes, Bletchley (and Buckingham) is fair enough as Bletchley is well known in its own right but 'Newport Pagnell' alone could be in Wales for all I know, plus another Shropshire one has been added to the mix. (It should be MK North, MK Central, and MK South and Buckingham,). Headingley is fairly well known in itself but surely an inner city Leeds constituency should at least be preceded with 'Leeds' as other cities are. Otherwise why didn't they also just do 'Edgbaston'? Morley should also just be Leeds South. I really had to zoom into the map to even find Great Wryley even which says it all about its deservedness on the national map - Mid Staffordshire please. Princess Risborough sounds delightful and I'm sure it is but I couldn't tell you where it is, unlike Mid Buckinghamshire. And as for the lengthened names as mentioned above - even that has not been applied consistently - Burton remains Burton and Uttoxeter doesn't get a mention despite what the local MP says. Amusingly Ongar is still in the Brentwood seat but for some reason is no longer deserving of a mention. And while obscure local authority names have been removed in many areas... the ridiculous Three Rivers makes an appearance. How did that happen?
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 10, 2021 21:34:37 GMT
In regards to the names I actually don't mind the long unwieldy names, I mean their not great but if we're gonna have a system that facilitates the creation of such uncohesive seats that warrant such names I'd rather they own up to the fact and call the seat "A central, B North and C" rather than papering over the absurd boundaries by invoking some cryptic nonsensical name lifted from the Old Testament that's meaningless to everybody The way things were going I was honestly expecting the commission to propose the seats of "Cranmer's Rest" "Roads to Eboracum" "Danelaw North" and "Scottish Marshes" (bonus points for whoever can guess what those seats modern equivalent would be) The inconsistency when it comes to naming is quite impressive. I would like to congratulate the commission on consigning to the history books Eddisbury and Weaver Vale, plus several of the obscure 1970s local authority names such as Bassetlaw (-> Worksop and Retford), Charnwood (Mid Leicestershire), Halton (split in half across the river), South Lincolnshire instead of the comical South Holland and the Deepings, and I'm particularly pleased that they directly renamed Wyre Forest to Kidderminster and Erewash to Ilkeston and Long Eaton despite there being no boundary changes whatsoever, which is quite unprecedented really. Woodspring to North Somerset in 2010 after very minor changes is a precedent that springs to mind. I'm sure that the 1983 review would throw up some others which saw minor changes but got renamed to match newer local authorities. There seems to be an unwritten rule that the constituency which includes Bermondsey should have its name changed at each review, even if the existing name is fine.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,656
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 10, 2021 21:41:29 GMT
So once the whole country is done, the Tories perhaps won't get a massive benefit afterall, just a bunch of ugly seats after pissing away a decade. They pissed away a decade by trying to do a review with tighter numbers at the same time as reducing the number of seats. Two such different big changes need to be done seperately.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 11, 2021 8:17:44 GMT
So once the whole country is done, the Tories perhaps won't get a massive benefit afterall, just a bunch of ugly seats after pissing away a decade. Incremental change on a minimal basis usually leads to a drift towards increasingly irrational seats (on average), something that has been the subject of quite a lot of comment here. A complete redraw from scratch would produce a much better pattern of seats, but I can’t see it ever happening because sitting MPs hate change which might threaten their livelihoods.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 11, 2021 9:18:24 GMT
In regards to the names I actually don't mind the long unwieldy names, I mean their not great but if we're gonna have a system that facilitates the creation of such uncohesive seats that warrant such names I'd rather they own up to the fact and call the seat "A central, B North and C" rather than papering over the absurd boundaries by invoking some cryptic nonsensical name lifted from the Old Testament that's meaningless to everybody The way things were going I was honestly expecting the commission to propose the seats of "Cranmer's Rest" "Roads to Eboracum" "Danelaw North" and "Scottish Marshes" (bonus points for whoever can guess what those seats modern equivalent would be) The inconsistency when it comes to naming is quite impressive. I would like to congratulate the commission on consigning to the history books Eddisbury and Weaver Vale, plus several of the obscure 1970s local authority names such as Bassetlaw (-> Worksop and Retford), Charnwood (Mid Leicestershire), Halton (split in half across the river), South Lincolnshire instead of the comical South Holland and the Deepings, and I'm particularly pleased that they directly renamed Wyre Forest to Kidderminster and Erewash to Ilkeston and Long Eaton despite there being no boundary changes whatsoever, which is quite unprecedented really. Yet neighbouring Amber Valley remains, Accrington remains Hyndburn, and in other areas well-known names disappear in favour of yet more Little Dribbling and Giggleswick names, particularly in the south. 'Hedge End' sounds like something from fiction (imagine 'Con, Hedge End', after someone's name on the news?), at first glance the town of Reading appears to have shrunk and seemingly is only deserving of one seat when much of it is now 'Early and Woodley'. Same goes for Milton Keynes, Bletchley (and Buckingham) is fair enough as Bletchley is well known in its own right but 'Newport Pagnell' alone could be in Wales for all I know, plus another Shropshire one has been added to the mix. (It should be MK North, MK Central, and MK South and Buckingham,). Headingley is fairly well known in itself but surely an inner city Leeds constituency should at least be preceded with 'Leeds' as other cities are. Otherwise why didn't they also just do 'Edgbaston'? Morley should also just be Leeds South. I really had to zoom into the map to even find Great Wryley even which says it all about its deservedness on the national map - Mid Staffordshire please. Princess Risborough sounds delightful and I'm sure it is but I couldn't tell you where it is, unlike Mid Buckinghamshire. And as for the lengthened names as mentioned above - even that has not been applied consistently - Burton remains Burton and Uttoxeter doesn't get a mention despite what the local MP says. Amusingly Ongar is still in the Brentwood seat but for some reason is no longer deserving of a mention. And while obscure local authority names have been removed in many areas... the ridiculous Three Rivers makes an appearance. How did that happen? I am about 90% in agreement with this. Brevity and simplicity are great virtues here, and I'd like to put in a word in support of the dreary-sounding concept of obviousness.
I regret the tendency to what I call 'gazetteer' names that try to catalogue every settlement in the seat: I much prefer either the 'compass-point + county' format or, if town names are to be used, looking for a single suitable town, preferably one that has a decent record of being used for the purpose. This doesn't altogether preclude the use of 'Thistown & Thattown' names but a single town is preferable where possible.
Actually I'd have spared 'Bassetlaw' on the grounds of long familiarity since it made its first appearance in 1885; and even the almost-identical seat that existed before that was often informally called Bassetlaw, although officially it was East Retford. But I don't really object to BCE's proposal here (although we'll see if it survives the consultation process) and they should have got rid of Rushcliffe while they were at it (to say nothing of seats named after places they don't actually contain - yes, Broxtowe and Sherwood, I'm looking at you).
Elsewhere, I'm sorry to see that the completely meaningless names of Castle Point and Hertsmere have survived, as well as total mash-ups like S Basildon & E Thurrock. Castle Point admittedly is hard to name (Benfleet?) but S Herts would be fine for Hertsmere and as for SB&ET, why not simply S Essex?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 11, 2021 9:31:50 GMT
I think This & That names make sense when there are two roughly equal elements and not much else. So Castle Point would best be named Canvey Island & Hadleigh or something similar.
I do agree that South Basildon & East Thurrock is an unwieldy name, but South Essex is hardly specific enough - for me, that means anywhere south of Chelmsford more or less. And I don't think there's a better alternative, because the problem is that it is and always has been a leftovers seat to make surrounding constituencies work. Unless we get a boundary commission which will pair Brentwood with Stanford-le-Hope and assign a compact seat to the New Town (and I don't foresee that happening any time soon) I think we're stuck with it.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 11, 2021 10:15:30 GMT
I think This & That names make sense when there are two roughly equal elements and not much else. So Castle Point would best be named Canvey Island & Hadleigh or something similar. I do agree that South Basildon & East Thurrock is an unwieldy name, but South Essex is hardly specific enough - for me, that means anywhere south of Chelmsford more or less. And I don't think there's a better alternative, because the problem is that it is and always has been a leftovers seat to make surrounding constituencies work. Unless we get a boundary commission which will pair Brentwood with Stanford-le-Hope and assign a compact seat to the New Town (and I don't foresee that happening any time soon) I think we're stuck with it. I disagree. I think it's reasonable for a seats named in the 'West Barsetshire' style to comprise a much smaller area than might be implied by the name. After all, if a name like W Barset implies the entire western half of said (fictional) county, you'd hardly ever use such a name because half a county, even a fictional one, would almost always be far too big for a single seat. So I don't think the test should be whether the seat includes the entire areas that might reasonably be described as 'South Essex'. A better test would be whether any significant body of voters within the seat would consider this an incorrect descriptor of where they live. In this case, the answer to that question is no, so I think the name is acceptable if we can't think of anything better.
Applying the same principle, I note that historically there was a seat covering a fairly small geographical extent called SE Essex and that it overlapped a lot with the present Castle Point.
Incidentally I forget to say in my previous post that I agree with Pete Whitehead that the proposed S Lincs seat would better be called Spalding, although Holland also wouldn't be unreasonable. And can Sleaford drop the N Hykeham nonsense? Either Sleaford tout court or N Kesteven, please.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 11, 2021 10:41:02 GMT
I think This & That names make sense when there are two roughly equal elements and not much else. So Castle Point would best be named Canvey Island & Hadleigh or something similar. I do agree that South Basildon & East Thurrock is an unwieldy name, but South Essex is hardly specific enough - for me, that means anywhere south of Chelmsford more or less. And I don't think there's a better alternative, because the problem is that it is and always has been a leftovers seat to make surrounding constituencies work. Unless we get a boundary commission which will pair Brentwood with Stanford-le-Hope and assign a compact seat to the New Town (and I don't foresee that happening any time soon) I think we're stuck with it. I disagree. I think it's reasonable for a seats named in the 'West Barsetshire' style to comprise a much smaller area than might be implied by the name. After all, if a name like W Barset implies the entire western half of said (fictional) county, you'd hardly ever use such a name because half a county, even a fictional one, would almost always be far too big for a single seat. So I don't think the test should be whether the seat includes the entire areas that might reasonably be described as 'South Essex'. A better test would be whether any significant body of voters within the seat would consider this an incorrect descriptor of where they live. In this case, the answer to that question is no, so I think the name is acceptable if we can't think of anything better.
Applying the same principle, I note that historically there was a seat covering a fairly small geographical extent called SE Essex and that it overlapped a lot with the present Castle Point.
Incidentally I forget to say in my previous post that I agree with Pete Whitehead that the proposed S Lincs seat would better be called Spalding, although Holland also wouldn't be unreasonable. And can Sleaford drop the N Hykeham nonsense? Either Sleaford tout court or N Kesteven, please. I don't think a Direction County seat has to include the entirety of a region, but I do think it needs to be fairly obvious when looking at a map of constituencies which name goes with which seat. And I don't think South Essex passes that test, whereas South Hertfordshire for Hertsmere definitely would.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 11, 2021 11:01:03 GMT
Actually I agree that that's also a perfectly reasonable test although the current seats of E Devon and NE Derbyshire might struggle with it.
But in the end, it's sometimes a matter of the least bad name rather than the best one; and, while taking your point, I still can't think of anything better than S Essex.
Anyway, just for fun, here's the old SE Essex seat as it existed until 1983.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 11, 2021 11:27:33 GMT
South East Essex is a case of a constituency which started out as a reasonable name for a large area, but became progressively smaller and smaller as the towns in it were given their own seats. The name was a reasonable one in 1885 when it included the Dengie peninsula and also in 1918 when it still covered the entire south coast of Essex save for Southend. Then Grays and Tilbury went to creating Thurrock (1945). It was split up in 1950-55 but the name was resurrected in 1955 presumably because it was traditional, and it wasn't clear which was the main town in the constituency.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 11, 2021 11:44:18 GMT
It also included Rochford rural district from 1955 to 1974 so the name was reasonable then too. it was only from 1974-83 when that area was removed to Maldon that it became ridiculous but then it was already an established name
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,310
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 11, 2021 11:57:07 GMT
I think this is a full list of the split wards. None in East or North East.
West Northamptonshire, Silverstone North Northamptonshire, Finedon North Northamptonshire, Irchester
Wandsworth, Fairfield Croydon, Waddon Havering, Hylands
South Lakeland, Bowness & Levens Manchester, Miles Platting & Newton Heath Wirral, Upton
Basingstoke and Deane, Oakley & The Candovers Buckinghamshire, Chiltern Ridges West Berkshire, Downlands
Plymouth, Peverell
Birmingham, Brandwood & King's Heath Birmingham, Weoley & Selly Oak Sandwell, Blackheath
Kirklees, Dalton Leeds, Gipton & Harehills Sheffield, Richmond
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 11, 2021 15:15:06 GMT
I think this is a full list of the split wards. None in East or North East. West Northamptonshire, Silverstone North Northamptonshire, Finedon North Northamptonshire, Irchester Wandsworth, Fairfield Croydon, Waddon Havering, Hylands South Lakeland, Bowness & Levens Manchester, Miles Platting & Newton Heath Wirral, Upton Basingstoke and Deane, Oakley & The Candovers Buckinghamshire, Chiltern Ridges West Berkshire, Downlands Plymouth, Peverell Birmingham, Brandwood & King's Heath Birmingham, Weoley & Selly Oak Sandwell, Blackheath Kirklees, Dalton Leeds, Gipton & Harehills Sheffield, Richmond This is really useful.
So - 19 in all. That is rather more than I was expecting.
And I am prepared to enter into a friendly low-stake (i.e. no-stake) wager with anyone on the forum that the eventual number will be significantly higher. We've already seen in some suggestions on the forum that the availability of ward splits means that it's possible to suggest improvements to the BCE scheme that involve relatively minor tweaks, shifting part of a ward only and affecting only two seats, thus avoiding the 'ripple effect' of knock-on changes that tend to result if only whole wards can be moved. The scope for this kind of 'fine tuning' is potentially a major advantage of allowing ward splits, which is why I expect the number to increase substantially as a result of the consultation process.
It also, however, creates a temptation for political parties to try to tip the scales in marginal seats by proposing the addition (or removal) of pockets of perceived support (or opposition), without having to shift whole wards. I can only express the hope that BCE will be alert to this.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 11, 2021 15:18:32 GMT
I think this is a full list of the split wards. None in East or North East. West Northamptonshire, Silverstone North Northamptonshire, Finedon North Northamptonshire, Irchester Wandsworth, Fairfield Croydon, Waddon Havering, Hylands South Lakeland, Bowness & Levens Manchester, Miles Platting & Newton Heath Wirral, Upton Basingstoke and Deane, Oakley & The Candovers Buckinghamshire, Chiltern Ridges West Berkshire, Downlands Plymouth, Peverell Birmingham, Brandwood & King's Heath Birmingham, Weoley & Selly Oak Sandwell, Blackheath Kirklees, Dalton Leeds, Gipton & Harehills Sheffield, Richmond This is really useful.
So - 19 in all. That is rather more than I was expecting.
And I am prepared to enter into a friendly low-stake (i.e. no-stake) wager with anyone on the forum that the eventual number will be significantly higher. We've already seen in some suggestions on the forum that the availability of ward splits means that it's possible to suggest improvements to the BCE scheme that involve relatively minor tweaks, shifting part of a ward only and affecting only two seats, thus avoiding the 'ripple effect' of knock-on changes that tend to result if only whole wards can be moved. The scope for this kind of 'fine tuning' is potentially a major advantage of allowing ward splits, which is why I expect the number to increase substantially as a result of the consultation process.
It also, however, creates a temptation for political parties to try to tip the scales in marginal seats by proposing the addition (or removal) of pockets of perceived support (or opposition), without having to shift whole wards. I can only express the hope that BCE will be alert to this.
Are those split wards obviously already compartmentalised by the severance effect of some physical feature or is it just more of a practical necessity to make the numbers work? I only know the Wandsworth example where the Trinity Road underpass, a remnant of the 1970s Inner London Motorway Box proposals, is used, which is entirely reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 11, 2021 15:29:24 GMT
This is really useful.
So - 19 in all. That is rather more than I was expecting.
And I am prepared to enter into a friendly low-stake (i.e. no-stake) wager with anyone on the forum that the eventual number will be significantly higher. We've already seen in some suggestions on the forum that the availability of ward splits means that it's possible to suggest improvements to the BCE scheme that involve relatively minor tweaks, shifting part of a ward only and affecting only two seats, thus avoiding the 'ripple effect' of knock-on changes that tend to result if only whole wards can be moved. The scope for this kind of 'fine tuning' is potentially a major advantage of allowing ward splits, which is why I expect the number to increase substantially as a result of the consultation process.
It also, however, creates a temptation for political parties to try to tip the scales in marginal seats by proposing the addition (or removal) of pockets of perceived support (or opposition), without having to shift whole wards. I can only express the hope that BCE will be alert to this.
Are those split wards obviously already compartmentalised by the severance effect of some physical feature or is it more of a practical necessity to make the numbers work? Well, in England (Scotland is a different story) you don't need any ward splits at all to make the numbers work; there's a workable non-split solution everywhere. So to that extent, every ward split is discretionary.
But it would be interesting to go through the list and work out why each split has been decided upon. I'm guessing that the normal reason will be (i) to avoid too much disruption to the existing seat pattern, (ii) to reduce the number of LA boundary-crossings, (iii) to make more compact seats. If I get the chance I'll go through the list and try to classify them; but I can say now that the three in Nhants, for instance, are to preserve (roughly) the current seat pattern.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 11, 2021 16:07:10 GMT
Are those split wards obviously already compartmentalised by the severance effect of some physical feature or is it more of a practical necessity to make the numbers work? Well, in England (Scotland is a different story) you don't need any ward splits at all to make the numbers work; there's a workable non-split solution everywhere. So to that extent, every ward split is discretionary. But it would be interesting to go through the list and work out why each split has been decided upon. I'm guessing that the normal reason will be (i) to avoid too much disruption to the existing seat pattern, (ii) to reduce the number of LA boundary-crossings, (iii) to make more compact seats. If I get the chance I'll go through the list and try to classify them; but I can say now that the three in Nhants, for instance, are to preserve (roughly) the current seat pattern.
The same is true of the 2 in South Birmingham. What is irritating is that the old ward borders split Kings Heath with the two parts ending up in different constituencies. The new ward borders reunite Kings Heath. So what does the Boundary Commission do? It splits the ward along the old lines. I will definitely be objecting to this.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 11, 2021 17:46:51 GMT
Well, in England (Scotland is a different story) you don't need any ward splits at all to make the numbers work; there's a workable non-split solution everywhere. So to that extent, every ward split is discretionary. But it would be interesting to go through the list and work out why each split has been decided upon. I'm guessing that the normal reason will be (i) to avoid too much disruption to the existing seat pattern, (ii) to reduce the number of LA boundary-crossings, (iii) to make more compact seats. If I get the chance I'll go through the list and try to classify them; but I can say now that the three in Nhants, for instance, are to preserve (roughly) the current seat pattern.
The same is true of the 2 in South Birmingham. What is irritating is that the old ward borders split Kings Heath with the two parts ending up in different constituencies. The new ward borders reunite Kings Heath. So what does the Boundary Commission do? It splits the ward along the old lines. I will definitely be objecting to this. It's difficult when they're starting from such a peculiar map that bears so little resemblance to the geography of Birmingham.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 11, 2021 19:12:25 GMT
Well, in England (Scotland is a different story) you don't need any ward splits at all to make the numbers work; there's a workable non-split solution everywhere. So to that extent, every ward split is discretionary. But it would be interesting to go through the list and work out why each split has been decided upon. I'm guessing that the normal reason will be (i) to avoid too much disruption to the existing seat pattern, (ii) to reduce the number of LA boundary-crossings, (iii) to make more compact seats. If I get the chance I'll go through the list and try to classify them; but I can say now that the three in Nhants, for instance, are to preserve (roughly) the current seat pattern.
The same is true of the 2 in South Birmingham. What is irritating is that the old ward borders split Kings Heath with the two parts ending up in different constituencies. The new ward borders reunite Kings Heath. So what does the Boundary Commission do? It splits the ward along the old lines. I will definitely be objecting to this. Classic!
|
|