|
|
Post by đ´ââ ď¸ Neath West đ´ââ ď¸ on Jun 23, 2021 20:06:38 GMT
Kensington and Westminster North West, anyone?  Central London Inner Central North West shurely?! Name it after a prominent local feature: London Westway. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 23, 2021 20:26:14 GMT
Does anyone know why Runnymede has now disappeared in favour of Weighbridge, sorry, 'Weybridge and Chertsey', when it still includes the entirety of Runnymede? The changes that did occur are an addition from the non-Runnymede bit anyway, so I'm confused as to why the name has gone, when Runnymede is well known in itself (even I know it, thanks to the Magna Carta) and not a massively obscure local authority name. Runnymede is a name we're well rid of. It's firmly in the category of terrible 1970s names that still blight the local government map. In this instance it was a case of desperately looking for a name that people would have heard of as a way of avoiding the petty local jealousies that might have been stirred up if they had named the LA after its principal town and obvious centre, namely Chertsey.
Runnymede (the actual place) is right at the northern end of the district and as for the only thing for which Runnymede is famous, namely the signing of Magna Carta, it is not entirely certain that this even took place on the Surrey side of the river; it may have been on the other side, thus not in Runnymede district at all. And just to add to the general confusion, the course of the river may have changed in the last eight centuries so what was on the south side of the river back then may be on the north side now, or vice versa. Ah, a bit like Kirklees then, which apparently doesnât include the site of Kirklees Priory itself and Robin Hoodâs grave, which is in Calderdale apparently. However Kirklees, like Tameside and many others, hasnât made it on to the constituency map - though you never know Colne Valley could become Kirklees West one day⌠To be fair Iâm less irked by âobscureâ names for local authorities (as opposed to unplaceable constituencies) say like Kirklees if they cover several diverse similarly sized towns as I understand how those in the towns feel a sense of unfairness as they perceive a principal named town to be the âfocusâ of all the services, funding, etc, especially if that town is at a geographical âextremityâ of the district, like Huddersfield is (and tbf this appears to still a common feeling in Dewsbury/Batley anyhow despite the districts name) I wonder if âMirfieldâ was touted as a possible name as it is in the heart of the district and the sort of place that would demand such a thing. In the US most of their âcountiesâ (I assume the equivalent of our councils, I only know this thanks to Georgia and the multiple counties that covered Atlanta) appear to not be named after the town/city itself but some historic family, a native name or president or some random name - I wonder what weird council names could crop up if all UK councils followed such a model (except for the large Shire ones of course which make sense). I could envisage Bury being Irwell Valley, for example. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 23, 2021 21:41:40 GMT
Huddersfield is by far the largest town in Kirklees (more than twice the size of the Dewsbury, and nowhere else comes close). Also, if you squared off the borough youâd actually find Huddersfield lies fairly close to the centre of it. Itâs most certainly not at a âgeographical extremityâ.
I do agree the fact that Kirklees Priority isnât actually in the borough makes a mockery of the name though. I think it was the fact Dewsbury was (an undersized) county borough at the time of amalgamation that stopped Kirklees doing a Wakefield and just being named after Huddersfield.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 23, 2021 22:48:11 GMT
Huddersfield is by far the largest town in Kirklees (more than twice the size of the Dewsbury, and nowhere else comes close). Also, if you squared off the borough youâd actually find Huddersfield lies fairly close to the centre of it. Itâs most certainly not at a âgeographical extremityâ. I do agree the fact that Kirklees Priority isnât actually in the borough makes a mockery of the name though. I think it was the fact Dewsbury was (an undersized) county borough at the time of amalgamation that stopped Kirklees doing a Wakefield and just being named after Huddersfield. I should've known that given significant parts of the town are in Colne Valley (!) yet Dewsbury constituency has to be bulked up by Kirkburton/Denby/Mirfield, and of course Batley is with Spen. I agree H'field isn't exactly in Marsden but just that it isn't slap bang in the middle I guess similar to Wakefield borough in a way. Here in Prestwich we also feel a bit remote from Bury, but at least Bury is right at the heart of the borough overall, just that we lean more to Manchester, which is understandable. Bit like how 'Ikea Leeds' is in Birstall, Kirklees, with a Wakefield postcode. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 1, 2021 11:19:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 1, 2021 11:27:06 GMT
I don't get why he gives the 'predicted' results by ward but not the 'actual' ward results from 2019 |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 1, 2021 11:33:40 GMT
I don't get why he gives the 'predicted' results by ward but not the 'actual' ward results from 2019 I do...he would like to see the colour of your money before he fully releases his stats. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 1, 2021 15:31:02 GMT
Notional results in largely rural constituencies should always be viewed with caution due to lower levels of competition at council level in those areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 1, 2021 15:45:27 GMT
Although most of those constituencies will be safe seats whatever the exact boundaries are and the notionals don't matter too much.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 1, 2021 20:29:20 GMT
I love how 'West Pennine Moors' is on there as ' Pennine Moors West', which is no doubt what the BBC would call it on election night, and further demonstrating what a ridiculous seat/name it is. Even South (East) Lancashire wouldn't be too bad. There is also 'Humber South', whose name probably won't survive the review. Though it doesn't correspond with the authority areas, North Lincolnshire would be an alright alternative, failing that, one or two of the (insert towns) name might end up being the case. Speaking of local authority areas, following on from my earlier mention of name inconsistency when it comes to abolishing some of the obscure local authority names - such inconsistency is demonstrated in two neighbouring seats! As mentioned before Erewash -> Ilkeston and Long Eaton - despite no change, it's fair enough as the towns make more sense plus importantly the cosntituency doesn't comprise the entire Erewash borough, yet.... Broxtowe remains Broxtowe despite a large chunk of it (Kimberley) going into Nottingham North and thus not only doesn't comprise the whole authority but also leaves an awfully thin bit in the middle. To follow the Ilkeston model it should be Beeston and Eastwood. Stapleford might not be happy with that, mind, but it takes into account the geographical range and the extent of change better (Eastwood was in Ashfield before). I wouldn't mind Nottingham West personally - I mean 'Norwich North' is significantly made up of non-Norwich wards I believe? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,797
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 1, 2021 21:30:45 GMT
As mentioned before Erewash -> Ilkeston and Long Eaton - despite no change, it's fair enough as the towns make more sense plus importantly the cosntituency doesn't comprise the entire Erewash borough, yet.... I don't like name changes for the sake of name changes, primarily because Wikipedia rules are that that means it is a new seat and requires a new, seperate page, meaning it breaks the longitudinal history. To all intents and purposes, Sheffield Hillsborough & Brightside *IS* Sheffield Brightside, but the information and longitudinal information has to be on seperate pages, and graphs of data have to be broken between the "different" seats. |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,806
|
Post by andrea on Jul 3, 2021 14:15:53 GMT
If Labour keep their previous rule that an MP has a territorial claim on a new constituency if at least 40% of its old seat goes into the new one (or on the constituency where the highest % of the previous seat goes if 40% is achieved nowhere), based on the Electoral Calculus' calculations of electorates of the proposed boundaries, the reselection battles would be
City of Durham: Mary Foy vs Bridget Phillipson
Washington and Sunderland South West: Sharon Hodgson vs Bridget Phillipson
Newcastle West: Chi Onwurah vs Cathrine McKinnell
Tynemouth: Alan Campbell vs Mary Glindon. But Glindon would have the right to a simple trigger ballot reselection process on Newcastle North. Campbell would have the same claim on the less appealing Whitley Bay and Cramlington too.
Ellesmere Port: Justin Madders vs Alison McGovern
Denton and Hyde: Jonathan Reynolds vs Andrew Gwynne. Reynolds is just shy of a claim on the new Ashton under Lyne (Rayner has, but she also has Failsworth & Droylsden).
Headingley: Alex Sobel vs Rachel Reeves. Reeves has a claim on new Pudsey too. And Sobel on the new Leeds North West which should be a notionally Conservative seat.
Dulwich and Sydenham: Ellie Reeves vs Helen Hayes
(If Florence Eshalomi goes for Vauxhall and Camberwell and Steve Reed gets Croydon North, I suppose Hayes could realistically try for both Clapham & Brixton or Norwood. However, they would be open selections).
|
|
|
|
Post by DavÄąd Boothroyd on Jul 3, 2021 14:45:59 GMT
I have heard that Labour is going to keep the 40% rule. And it was on a Zoom meeting including NEC members so I'm reasonably confident it's true.
|
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,806
|
Post by andrea on Jul 3, 2021 20:11:38 GMT
If Labour keep their previous rule that an MP has a territorial claim on a new constituency if at least 40% of its old seat goes into the new one (or on the constituency where the highest % of the previous seat goes if 40% is achieved nowhere), based on the Electoral Calculus' calculations of electorates of the proposed boundaries, the reselection battles would be City of Durham: Mary Foy vs Bridget Phillipson Washington and Sunderland South West: Sharon Hodgson vs Bridget Phillipson Newcastle West: Chi Onwurah vs Cathrine McKinnell Tynemouth: Alan Campbell vs Mary Glindon. But Glindon would have the right to a simple trigger ballot reselection process on Newcastle North. Campbell would have the same claim on the less appealing Whitley Bay and Cramlington too. Ellesmere Port: Justin Madders vs Alison McGovern Denton and Hyde: Jonathan Reynolds vs Andrew Gwynne. Reynolds is just shy of a claim on the new Ashton under Lyne (Rayner has, but she also has Failsworth & Droylsden). Headingley: Alex Sobel vs Rachel Reeves. Reeves has a claim on new Pudsey too. And Sobel on the new Leeds North West which should be a notionally Conservative seat. Dulwich and Sydenham: Ellie Reeves vs Helen Hayes (If Florence Eshalomi goes for Vauxhall and Camberwell and Steve Reed gets Croydon North, I suppose Hayes could realistically try for both Clapham & Brixton or Norwood. However, they would be open selections). MPs with territorial claims on more than 1 proposed seat. Some already mentioned above Bridget Phillipson: City of Durham and Washington & Sunderland South West Mary Glindon: Tynemouth and Newcastle North Alan Campbell: Tynemouth and Whitley Bay & Cramlington Mike Amesbury: Runcorn & Helsby and Nortwich Angela Rayner: Failsworth & Droylsden and Ashton Alex Sobel: Headingley and Leeds North West Rachel Reeves: Pudsey and Headingley Ellie Reeves: Dulwich & Sydenham and Beckenham Steve Reed: Croydon North and Norwood Florence Eshalomi: Vauxhall & Camberwell and Dulwich & Sydenham Lynn Brown: Stratford & Bow and West Ham & Beckton |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 3, 2021 22:35:02 GMT
I have heard that Labour is going to keep the 40% rule. And it was on a Zoom meeting including NEC members so I'm reasonably confident it's true. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have no such rule as far as I know, and the creation of new seats from oversized seats could displace quite a few lacklustre MPs. I suspect Ian Liddell-Granger and Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (assuming they do not decide to retire at the next election) will be deselected as a direct result of boundary changes for example. |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,645
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 4, 2021 7:40:14 GMT
I have heard that Labour is going to keep the 40% rule. And it was on a Zoom meeting including NEC members so I'm reasonably confident it's true. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have no such rule as far as I know, and the creation of new seats from oversized seats could displace quite a few lacklustre MPs. I suspect Ian Liddell-Granger and Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (assuming they do not decide to retire at the next election) will be deselected as a direct result of boundary changes for example. Hereâs hoping, in the case of the âlacklustreâ Liddell-Grainger. Liddell Grainger lives in West Somerset and is very much the MP for West Somerset not Bridgwater. I think if he stood, he would want Tiverton and Minehead, leaving Bridgwater for a new Conservative candidate. Neil Parish could then go to Honiton and Simon Jupp to Exmouth. Parish will be 68 in 2024 so he may retire too, although coincidentally he lives in the new Bridgwater seat. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 4, 2021 8:10:44 GMT
I have heard that Labour is going to keep the 40% rule. And it was on a Zoom meeting including NEC members so I'm reasonably confident it's true. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have no such rule as far as I know, and the creation of new seats from oversized seats could displace quite a few lacklustre MPs. I suspect Ian Liddell-Granger and Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (assuming they do not decide to retire at the next election) will be deselected as a direct result of boundary changes for example. They have a different type of rule: More than 2/3 = eligible for reselection as incumbent Between 1/2 and 2/3, with no other MP more than 1/4 = eligible for reselection as incumbent Less than 1/2 but no other incumbent interested = eligible for reselection as incumbent Between 1/2 and 2/3 and another MP has more than 1/4 = limited contest Less than 1/2 and another incumbent interested = limited contest However I donât see how your point about creating new seats from oversized ones works against incumbents. Surely that just ends up with even more seats that they are likely to have a claim to? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 4, 2021 17:38:45 GMT
Has anyone submitted a response to BCE yet? Do they send you a PDF of your consultation response or do you need to save it yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jul 4, 2021 18:20:27 GMT
Has anyone submitted a response to BCE yet? Do they send you a PDF of your consultation response or do you need to save it yourself? Still preparing, hope to submit next week. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 4, 2021 18:20:37 GMT
Huddersfield is by far the largest town in Kirklees (more than twice the size of the Dewsbury, and nowhere else comes close). Also, if you squared off the borough youâd actually find Huddersfield lies fairly close to the centre of it. Itâs most certainly not at a âgeographical extremityâ. I do agree the fact that Kirklees Priority isnât actually in the borough makes a mockery of the name though. I think it was the fact Dewsbury was (an undersized) county borough at the time of amalgamation that stopped Kirklees doing a Wakefield and just being named after Huddersfield. They could have gone for Calderdale 2? Or Calder, Colne, Holme and Spen. However the boundary panhandle that puts Kirklees Hall into Calderdale follows no geographical feature on its east side and it would be much more sensible in this day and age to make the M62 the boundary in this area. The panhandle puts a really important access road to the M62 for Kirklees into Calderdale, which is daft. Most people have no idea where Kirklees Hall is anyway (it is not signposted, has been turned into housing up a gated road, and is very hard to visit) , so it really doesn't matter where it is.. |
|
