jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054 
|
Post by jamie on Jun 29, 2023 19:33:39 GMT
I would argue the problematic boundary here is the local authority boundary, not the constituency one. Absorb Solihull Council into Birmingham and rename Solihull constituency ‘Birmingham Solihull’? |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jun 29, 2023 19:53:37 GMT
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. And this is where we get into broader issues about electoral administration in GB, if not the whole UK. We need coordinated boundary reviews, we need local authorities to be no longer frozen to their 1970s "origins". One issue gets into another feeds into another. We perhaps don't have the political culture to fix it |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 29, 2023 19:56:00 GMT
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!?
”Eye” also held the record for being the smallest town (population c.1,500) to be the name of a constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 29, 2023 20:30:24 GMT
I would argue the problematic boundary here is the local authority boundary, not the constituency one. And this is where we get into broader issues about electoral administration in GB, if not the whole UK. We need coordinated boundary reviews, we need local authorities to be no longer frozen to their 1970s "origins". One issue gets into another feeds into another. We perhaps don't have the political culture to fix it I don't think this is particular to the UK. There are plenty of examples worldwide where cities have expanded but the local government boundaries haven't changed. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jun 29, 2023 20:41:42 GMT
And this is where we get into broader issues about electoral administration in GB, if not the whole UK. We need coordinated boundary reviews, we need local authorities to be no longer frozen to their 1970s "origins". One issue gets into another feeds into another. We perhaps don't have the political culture to fix it I don't think this is particular to the UK. There are plenty of examples worldwide where cities have expanded but the local government boundaries haven't changed. No doubt! I'm just referring the UK because that's the main subject of this thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 29, 2023 20:43:33 GMT
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!?
Here are the shortest names after this review: |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 29, 2023 21:02:03 GMT
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. They both suck.  |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 29, 2023 21:03:27 GMT
I would argue the problematic boundary here is the local authority boundary, not the constituency one. Absorb Solihull Council into Birmingham and rename Solihull constituency ‘Birmingham Solihull’? Same should also go for [Birmingham] Sutton Coldfield. And Broxtowe -> Nottingham West |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,097
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 29, 2023 21:20:10 GMT
I would argue the problematic boundary here is the local authority boundary, not the constituency one. They both suck. The only bit of the constituency that doesn’t belong here is Heartlands (aka Bordesley Green East). In an ideal world I’d swap it for Kingshurst & Fordbridge. |
|
Sg1
Conservative
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by Sg1 on Jun 29, 2023 21:41:03 GMT
They both suck. The only bit of the constituency that doesn’t belong here is Heartlands (aka Bordesley Green East). In an ideal world I’d swap it for Kingshurst & Fordbridge. Solihull North is a joke. Nobody in Smith's Wood or Castle Bromwich says they're from Solihull. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 22:30:14 GMT
I personally think we should hedge our bets, split the world's known religions between us, and thank the relevant god(s), beings, prophets or messiahs, with sacrifices if required, to register our thanks and great relief for actually getting some f*****g boundary changes sorted!!!!
(Yes I know there's a technical process still to be done, but praise all that is holy and unholy that we're pretty much there)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 23:07:51 GMT
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. I'm not sure that's a good example for promoting change. The new set-up for Wakefield South is I think an undoubted improvement, and quite logical in its way. I have little doubt that the residents of Wakefield South will prefer being in a seat with Horbury, Ossett and the Wakefield Rural ward, than being bolted onto Hemsworth - or for that matter, being in a seat with the rest of the city for which they are named. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 30, 2023 8:57:18 GMT
I would argue the problematic boundary here is the local authority boundary, not the constituency one. Absorb Solihull Council into Birmingham and rename Solihull constituency ‘Birmingham Solihull’? I think enough time has passed since Neville that we can go back to honouring the legacy of the Chamberlain family, by going back to compass point names for the area and renaming Solihull to Birmingham East. The rest of them can then be renamed as follows: Northfield -> SW Selly Oak -> SE Edgbaston -> W Ladywood -> Central Perry Barr -> NW Erdington -> N Central Sutton Coldfield -> N Hodge Hill etc. -> NE Yardley -> ESE Hall Green -> S Central |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 30, 2023 9:34:03 GMT
I personally think we should hedge our bets, split the world's known religions between us, and thank the relevant god(s), beings, prophets or messiahs, with sacrifices if required, to register our thanks and great relief for actually getting some f*****g boundary changes sorted!!!!
(Yes I know there's a technical process still to be done, but praise all that is holy and unholy that we're pretty much there)
Given all that has gone on since 2010, I am waiting until actual royal assent before celebrating |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 30, 2023 10:05:35 GMT
I personally think we should hedge our bets, split the world's known religions between us, and thank the relevant god(s), beings, prophets or messiahs, with sacrifices if required, to register our thanks and great relief for actually getting some f*****g boundary changes sorted!!!!
(Yes I know there's a technical process still to be done, but praise all that is holy and unholy that we're pretty much there)
Given all that has gone on since 2010, I am waiting until actual royal assent before celebrating Keep an eye on the Court Circular and privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/meetings-and-orders/orders-in-council/. Incidentally if you want to buy printed copies of the reports, this seems to be the only place: www.publicinformationonline.com/shop?query=boundary&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 30, 2023 10:11:39 GMT
A total of £137.60 for the full set including all the maps. The perfect Christmas present!
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 30, 2023 10:18:32 GMT
From Dandy booksellers.
Might pick up a Desperate Dan annual while I'm there. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 30, 2023 10:18:57 GMT
A total of £137.60 for the full set including all the maps. The perfect Christmas present! For oneself.  |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Jun 30, 2023 13:51:05 GMT
Has anyone got the variance data between the current constituency boundaries and the newly proposed ones? Presumably the difference will be extensive considering the length of time it has taken to get these over the line, and this was on the old 10% threshold.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 30, 2023 14:18:39 GMT
Has anyone got the variance data between the current constituency boundaries and the newly proposed ones? Presumably the difference will be extensive considering the length of time it has taken to get these over the line, and this was on the old 10% threshold. Not sure what exactly you mean by "variance", but the old (existing) constituency boundaries were not drawn according to a 10% threshold. |
|
