2023 Review

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jun 28, 2023 18:43:38 GMT YL said:

Jun 28, 2023 18:27:07 GMT islington said:

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.

Though in practice the Commission only gives it as a reason when they've decided not to do it anyway - this time round they opposed returning to the present boundaries in Cambridge because it would "break ties between Queen Ediths and Cherry Hinton", which haven't been in the same seat for 40 years.

[The Bishop]

Jun 29, 2023 7:43:38 GMT YL said:

I also think the criticisms of the names are overblown, though of course there are some I don’t like. It often seems to me that some have an obsession with brevity over other criteria for a good name, and don’t like it that the Commissions don’t share that approach.

But traditionally brevity was the thing, and it *generally* worked very well. Maybe things started to change in the 1990s review - Sleaford *and North Hykeham* (the latter basically being a biggish village) being one of the most notorious examples. Even in our current crop of byelections, is there any real need for Selby *and Ainsty*?

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jun 29, 2023 11:11:22 GMT The Bishop said:

Jun 29, 2023 7:43:38 GMT YL said:

I also think the criticisms of the names are overblown, though of course there are some I don’t like. It often seems to me that some have an obsession with brevity over other criteria for a good name, and don’t like it that the Commissions don’t share that approach.

But traditionally brevity was the thing, and it *generally* worked very well. Maybe things started to change in the 1990s review - Sleaford *and North Hykeham* (the latter basically being a biggish village) being one of the most notorious examples. Even in our current crop of byelections, is there any real need for Selby *and Ainsty*?

No it's not.

It's the south end of Lincoln.

(Incidentally, this is a case where minimum change does prevent a vastly more sensible set of boundaries.)

[Sibboleth]

The amusing thing about the 'South Shropshire' name is that it implies exactly the same general area as 'Ludlow': no one really thinks of Bridgnorth as 'South Shropshire'. But they made the same silly error with 'North Herefordshire' (which properly refers to just the area between Leominster and Ludlow, not the whole northern half of Herefordshire!) in the last review. Townies, eh.

[Sibboleth]

Jun 28, 2023 20:25:12 GMT greenhert said:

In terms of long-established constituency names (pre-1983), we say goodbye to:

Saffron Walden (first created 1885)
(City of) Chester (1545)
Southend West (1950)
Streatham (1918)
Wakefield (1832)
Harborough (1885)
Bosworth (1885)
Nottingham North (1955)
Wellingborough (1918)
Bury St Edmunds (1614)
Beckenham (1950)
Croydon Central (1974)
Edmonton (1918)
Lewisham Deptford (1974)
(Enfield) Southgate (1950)
Vauxhall (1950)
Blaydon (1885)
Jarrow (1885)
Middlesbrough (1974)
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central (1918)
North West Durham (1950, also existed 1885-1918)
Berwick-upon-Tweed (1512)
Penrith & The Border (1950)
Workington (1918)
Manchester Gorton (1918)
Leigh (1918)
Buckingham (1542)
Fareham (1974)
Henley (1918)
Hove (1950)
Isle of Wight (1885)
Bristol West (1885)
Devizes (1331)
Wells (1295)
Birmingham Hall Green (1950)
Burton (1885)
Coventry North East (1974)
Solihull (1945)
Walsall North (1955)
Walsall South (1955)
West Bromwich East (1974)
West Bromwich West (1974)
Wolverhampton South West (1950)
Dewsbury (1885)
Don Valley (1918)
(Great) Grimsby (1295)
Keighley (1885)
Pudsey (1950)
Leeds West (1918)

The thing is, many of these constituencies had taken on such radically different forms over the years that retaining the name has often been actively unhelpful, a situation that is only getting worse as Wikipedia is now the standard reference point for historic constituencies for most people and it insists on a particularly brainless interpretation of these things. It is the rare exceptions to that which are a shame.

[Khunanup]

Jun 29, 2023 11:31:30 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jun 29, 2023 11:11:22 GMT The Bishop said:

But traditionally brevity was the thing, and it *generally* worked very well. Maybe things started to change in the 1990s review - Sleaford *and North Hykeham* (the latter basically being a biggish village) being one of the most notorious examples. Even in our current crop of byelections, is there any real need for Selby *and Ainsty*?

No it's not.

It's the south end of Lincoln.

(Incidentally, this is a case where minimum change does prevent a vastly more sensible set of boundaries.)

Indeed, and for everyone local they know it anchors the north end of the constituency which has absolutely nothing to do with Sleaford whatsoever (Lincoln is the locality focus for the north and west of the constituency so Hykeham is the avatar for that, and in the western parts, Newark is more significant than Sleaford is).

[Harry Hayfield]

Can I take a moment to grumble about the GIS files published by the Commissions? England and Wales have KML files (but none of the constituencies are labelled), Scotland has SHP files (which you need something else to open in the first place) and Ulster has nothing at all in any shape or form. Whatever happened to standardisation?

[greatkingrat]

Jun 29, 2023 16:16:55 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Can I take a moment to grumble about the GIS files published by the Commissions? England and Wales have KML files (but none of the constituencies are labelled), Scotland has SHP files (which you need something else to open in the first place) and Ulster has nothing at all in any shape or form. Whatever happened to standardisation?

Ulster said no.

[pl]

Jun 29, 2023 16:16:55 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Can I take a moment to grumble about the GIS files published by the Commissions? England and Wales have KML files (but none of the constituencies are labelled), Scotland has SHP files (which you need something else to open in the first place) and Ulster has nothing at all in any shape or form. Whatever happened to standardisation?

Devolution isn't it?

Probably best to introduce some UK level standardisation to maintain the Single Market in Data.

[nodealbrexiteer]

I'll leave the minutae of the reviews to bigger brains on this forum but I'm just looking forward to the much maligned Rallings and Thrasher producing thier notionals and for the exciting bit of the recalibrated swingometer

[YL]

Jun 29, 2023 11:11:22 GMT The Bishop said:

Jun 29, 2023 7:43:38 GMT YL said:

I also think the criticisms of the names are overblown, though of course there are some I don’t like. It often seems to me that some have an obsession with brevity over other criteria for a good name, and don’t like it that the Commissions don’t share that approach.

But traditionally brevity was the thing, and it *generally* worked very well. Maybe things started to change in the 1990s review - Sleaford *and North Hykeham* (the latter basically being a biggish village) being one of the most notorious examples. Even in our current crop of byelections, is there any real need for Selby *and Ainsty*?

I don't think Selby & Ainsty is a very good name but that's mostly because (a) most people don't know where the Ainsty is (b) to those who do know where it is it doesn't actually match the area it's trying to refer to in the name very well.

Part of my problem with the brevity above all approach is that if you ask me what I think is the worst current constituency name, I think I'm going to go for "Delyn": a 1970s neologism which refers to a former district which has been a former district for longer than it was an actual district. And yet as far as brevity goes it is an admirable name. "Elmet" was also a rather silly name which happened to be short. So yes, brevity is a criterion, and I'm not going to defend "Birmingham Hodge Hill & Solihull North", though frankly the boundaries there are part of the problem, but I think giving a reasonable description of the consituency (both to those who live there and those who don't but are reasonably geographically literate) should also be a criterion.

[Sibboleth]

...especially as no one in the area would define the area in question as 'Solihull North'.

[parlconst]

Jun 29, 2023 16:16:55 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Can I take a moment to grumble about the GIS files published by the Commissions? England and Wales have KML files (but none of the constituencies are labelled), Scotland has SHP files (which you need something else to open in the first place) and Ulster has nothing at all in any shape or form. Whatever happened to standardisation?

Not only that but the English GIS files, which are provided in a variety of formats, do not have the individual constitueny boundaries precisely contiguous with their neighbours. They have in different places very slight overlaps or slivers of gaps between them. This causes havoc in some the applications that I wish to use them, necessitating time-consuming manual adjustments. Grr... Why not draw the boundaries as lines and then polygonise them to create constituencies? (I had assumed that this was fairly basic good practice for GIS.)

[iainbhx]

Jun 29, 2023 17:30:46 GMT Sibboleth said:

...especially as no one in the area would define the area in question as 'Solihull North'.

It's all good in the wood.

There have been some very weak attempts to rebrand the area as North Solihull by the council, very, very weak, but that's been more down to trying to remove the reputation of Greater Chelmsley Wood.

[Harry Hayfield]

Jun 29, 2023 16:55:24 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

I'll leave the minutae of the reviews to bigger brains on this forum but I'm just looking forward to the much maligned Rallings and Thrasher producing thier notionals and for the exciting bit of the recalibrated swingometer

I would imagine we can expect their calculations anytime from the end of September onwards.

[John Chanin]

Jun 29, 2023 17:30:46 GMT Sibboleth said:

...especially as no one in the area would define the area in question as 'Solihull North'.

Quite so.  As I said in my profile in the Almanac,  Solihull North and North Solihull are not at all the same thing.

[iain]

Jun 29, 2023 17:30:46 GMT Sibboleth said:

...especially as no one in the area would define the area in question as 'Solihull North'.

Might as well go the whole hog and rename Morecambe & Lunesdale to ‘Lancaster North’.

[manchesterman]

Jun 29, 2023 11:11:22 GMT The Bishop said:

Jun 29, 2023 7:43:38 GMT YL said:

I also think the criticisms of the names are overblown, though of course there are some I don’t like. It often seems to me that some have an obsession with brevity over other criteria for a good name, and don’t like it that the Commissions don’t share that approach.

But traditionally brevity was the thing, and it *generally* worked very well. Maybe things started to change in the 1990s review - Sleaford *and North Hykeham* (the latter basically being a biggish village) being one of the most notorious examples. Even in our current crop of byelections, is there any real need for Selby *and Ainsty*?

Yes, I was thinking last night - after all the talk of overly long constituency names, what the shortest currently is.

I suspect it's Bath..?

and also what the shortest ever would have been?  I would  think Ayr would take some beating!?

[ilerda]

Jun 29, 2023 17:16:36 GMT YL said:

Jun 29, 2023 11:11:22 GMT The Bishop said:

But traditionally brevity was the thing, and it *generally* worked very well. Maybe things started to change in the 1990s review - Sleaford *and North Hykeham* (the latter basically being a biggish village) being one of the most notorious examples. Even in our current crop of byelections, is there any real need for Selby *and Ainsty*?

I don't think Selby & Ainsty is a very good name but that's mostly because (a) most people don't know where the Ainsty is (b) to those who do know where it is it doesn't actually match the area it's trying to refer to in the name very well.

Part of my problem with the brevity above all approach is that if you ask me what I think is the worst current constituency name, I think I'm going to go for "Delyn": a 1970s neologism which refers to a former district which has been a former district for longer than it was an actual district. And yet as far as brevity goes it is an admirable name. "Elmet" was also a rather silly name which happened to be short. So yes, brevity is a criterion, and I'm not going to defend "Birmingham Hodge Hill & Solihull North", though frankly the boundaries there are part of the problem, but I think giving a reasonable description of the consituency (both to those who live there and those who don't but are reasonably geographically literate) should also be a criterion.

I would argue the problematic boundary here is the local authority boundary, not the constituency one.

[jamie]

Jun 29, 2023 17:30:46 GMT Sibboleth said:

...especially as no one in the area would define the area in question as 'Solihull North'.

See also, the good people of Birtley do not consider themselves ‘Gateshead South’. Frankly, a lot of them identify more with Washington, so why the commission couldn’t just leave the name at that is beyond me.