|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 28, 2023 17:54:51 GMT
First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? Hi Dok |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 28, 2023 17:56:05 GMT
More like Ely: it's an area of land slightly above sea level surrounded by reclaimed marshes. So wait a few decades and it might be a proper island. Actually, 4m of sea level rise makes all of Axholme, Ely and Thanet into proper islands. Historically it was cut off from three different counties by three different rivers. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Jun 28, 2023 17:58:23 GMT
First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? Ynys Môn.... |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,551
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 28, 2023 17:58:30 GMT
First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? No. “Isle of Ely” in Cambridgeshire used to be Clement Freud’s constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jun 28, 2023 18:00:28 GMT
First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? Ynys Môn.... First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? No. “Isle of Ely” in Cambridgeshire used to be Clement Freud’s constituency. First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? Ely Of course. Sorry. I'm a bit rusty 😉. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jun 28, 2023 18:00:46 GMT
First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? Hi Dok Evening Adam 🙂 |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Jun 28, 2023 18:01:38 GMT
Actually, 4m of sea level rise makes all of Axholme, Ely and Thanet into proper islands. In the event of 4m of sea level rise, one would have thought that barriers would be built across the Humber Estuary and the Wash to avoid large amounts of land being flooded. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
|
Post by maxque on Jun 28, 2023 18:06:40 GMT
In recent years the Boundary Commission has proven itself to be irredeemably incompetent. I’ve began to think it should be abolished and it’s functions handed over to a joint committee of Parliament. That's not the Boundary Commission that's incompetent, it's the Government that wrote current rules and the MPs who voted those rules who are. This is the result of the 5% rule and of the non-sensical presomption towards keeping current boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 28, 2023 18:17:07 GMT
First use of "Isle of..." in a constituency name on mainland GB, I thiiiiiiiink? Ynys Môn.... no 'of'.  |
|
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 Jun 28, 2023 18:22:07 GMT
It won't be a surprise to anyone that I fucking hate the final recommendations and consider them a significant downgrade from the current boundaries, which themselves aren't brilliant.
I can but hope for the zombification of this review and the start of a new one.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 28, 2023 18:27:07 GMT
In recent years the Boundary Commission has proven itself to be irredeemably incompetent. I’ve began to think it should be abolished and it’s functions handed over to a joint committee of Parliament. That's not the Boundary Commission that's incompetent, it's the Government that wrote current rules and the MPs who voted those rules who are. This is the result of the 5% rule and of the non-sensical presomption towards keeping current boundaries. Well, we've rehearsed the 5% rule ad nauseam but what's so nonsensical about the presumption against unnecessary change?
When the Coalition proposed to set aside this presumption for the review that was intended to cut numbers to 600 there was an outcry from all parts of the House and the government had to beat a hasty retreat. And even if you'd argue that MPs' views shouldn't be taken into account, what about the general public? You don't have to sit for very long through any local hearing to realize that people generally don't like being shifted from one seat to another. So I'd defend this aspect of the rules - why should we have to start each time with a blank sheet of paper?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 28, 2023 18:40:47 GMT
It won't be a surprise to anyone that I fucking hate the final recommendations and consider them a significant downgrade from the current boundaries, which themselves aren't brilliant. I can but hope for the zombification of this review and the start of a new one. They're all right - an improvement, I think, on the 2013 and 2018 zombies.
And the current boundaries are based on electorates from 23 years ago, so an update is definitely needed.
Of course I can find plenty of things I don't like about the final outcome of the review, but it could definitely be worse. For instance, I've yet to find anything remotely as bad as Lancaster & Fleetwood. Even the Clackmannan monstrosity from the revised proposals has been tweaked so as to be noticeably less bad.
Actually, which is the worst seat (purely in terms of the boundary, ignoring names)? Harwich & N Essex must be a candidate. Or Rutland & Stamford. The Chester split is pretty grim, too. Any other suggestions?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,908
|
Post by YL on Jun 28, 2023 18:43:38 GMT
That's not the Boundary Commission that's incompetent, it's the Government that wrote current rules and the MPs who voted those rules who are. This is the result of the 5% rule and of the non-sensical presomption towards keeping current boundaries. Well, we've rehearsed the 5% rule ad nauseam but what's so nonsensical about the presumption against unnecessary change? When the Coalition proposed to set aside this presumption for the review that was intended to cut numbers to 600 there was an outcry from all parts of the House and the government had to beat a hasty retreat. And even if you'd argue that MPs' views shouldn't be taken into account, what about the general public? You don't have to sit for very long through any local hearing to realize that people generally don't like being shifted from one seat to another. So I'd defend this aspect of the rules - why should we have to start each time with a blank sheet of paper?
I agree that it's reasonable to have it as a criterion, but I think that as the rules are written now it's too strong and can encourage the retention of a basic pattern of constituencies which really doesn't work well any more, or encourage the approach (see much of Wales) where when a reduction is needed you select one seat for abolition and carve it up between its neighbours without really thinking about whether that makes sense. There are quite a few examples where prioritising retention of an existing seat has led to poor seats in the nearby area. I would re-word the "local ties" rule so that local ties which have been broken in the past can be taken account of. You've mentioned Wakefield South in the past; the current rules really make it hard to make a case for re-uniting it with the rest of Wakefield (and having been in Hemsworth for 27 years, it's now going to be in Ossett & Denby Dale). I'd also re-write the "inconvenience" rule to try to make it clear what it actually means (which I'd hope is "don't put most of Lancaster in a constituency with Fleetwood", or words to that effect) and also decouple that from the minimum change criterion. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306
|
Post by maxque on Jun 28, 2023 18:43:45 GMT
That's not the Boundary Commission that's incompetent, it's the Government that wrote current rules and the MPs who voted those rules who are. This is the result of the 5% rule and of the non-sensical presomption towards keeping current boundaries. Well, we've rehearsed the 5% rule ad nauseam but what's so nonsensical about the presumption against unnecessary change?
When the Coalition proposed to set aside this presumption for the review that was intended to cut numbers to 600 there was an outcry from all parts of the House and the government had to beat a hasty retreat. And even if you'd argue that MPs' views shouldn't be taken into account, what about the general public? You don't have to sit for very long through any local hearing to realize that people generally don't like being shifted from one seat to another. So I'd defend this aspect of the rules - why should we have to start each time with a blank sheet of paper?
There is nothing wrong per se with least change, but it keeps leftovers seats together when they should not exist and it creates nonsense in areas where other constituencies are made worse because they have to dance around an unchanged constituency in quota. It should be a criteria, but lower than the others. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 28, 2023 18:44:55 GMT
That's not the Boundary Commission that's incompetent, it's the Government that wrote current rules and the MPs who voted those rules who are. This is the result of the 5% rule and of the non-sensical presomption towards keeping current boundaries. Well, we've rehearsed the 5% rule ad nauseam but what's so nonsensical about the presumption against unnecessary change?
When the Coalition proposed to set aside this presumption for the review that was intended to cut numbers to 600 there was an outcry from all parts of the House and the government had to beat a hasty retreat. And even if you'd argue that MPs' views shouldn't be taken into account, what about the general public? You don't have to sit for very long through any local hearing to realize that people generally don't like being shifted from one seat to another. So I'd defend this aspect of the rules - why should we have to start each time with a blank sheet of paper?
But I do think once in a generation you do need to start with a blank sheet of paper, as otherwise seats get increasingly distorted and dislocated. 1983 was the last time. Perhaps in the 2030s the Boundary Commissions need to be told to start from scratch. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 28, 2023 18:47:44 GMT
Would anyone like to suggest specific examples where the 'least change' rule has led to undesirable results?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 28, 2023 18:50:04 GMT
It won't be a surprise to anyone that I fucking hate the final recommendations and consider them a significant downgrade from the current boundaries, which themselves aren't brilliant. I can but hope for the zombification of this review and the start of a new one. They're all right - an improvement, I think, on the 2013 and 2018 zombies.
And the current boundaries are based on electorates from 23 years ago, so an update is definitely needed.
Of course I can find plenty of things I don't like about the final outcome of the review, but it could definitely be worse. For instance, I've yet to find anything remotely as bad as Lancaster & Fleetwood. Even the Clackmannan monstrosity from the revised proposals has been tweaked so as to be noticeably less bad.
Actually, which is the worst seat (purely in terms of the boundary, ignoring names)? Harwich & N Essex must be a candidate. Or Rutland & Stamford. The Chester split is pretty grim, too. Any other suggestions?
The inclusion of Leicester suburbs in a seat including Stamford is the grimmest in my view. I'm none too keen on Stone & Penkridge either. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 28, 2023 18:57:22 GMT
The MP's representing North Warwickshire will be pleased, as Bedworth has made it, not that this stopped from adding Bedworth to their constituency since at least 1992.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,908
|
Post by YL on Jun 28, 2023 18:57:40 GMT
Would anyone like to suggest specific examples where the 'least change' rule has led to undesirable results? It influenced the Leicestershire map, which includes one of your nominations for worst seat. Indeed Harwich & North Essex owes a lot to it too. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Jun 28, 2023 19:04:27 GMT
Actually, which is the worst seat (purely in terms of the boundary, ignoring names)? Harwich & N Essex must be a candidate. Or Rutland & Stamford. The Chester split is pretty grim, too. Any other suggestions?
Bedale and Filey Thirsk and Malton must be up there surely. It won't be a surprise to anyone that I fucking hate the final recommendations and consider them a significant downgrade from the current boundaries, which themselves aren't brilliant. I can but hope for the zombification of this review and the start of a new one. Personally I'd support another review to reduce the number of seats considerably, maybe to 500. And with a provision that up to 100 seats can have population deviation up to 8% instead of 5%, to avoid awkward borders in areas where it's difficult to avoid them. But in the meantime this one needs passing rather than outdated boundaries continuing to be used. |
|
