|
|
Post by ArmchairCritic on Nov 10, 2022 22:06:05 GMT
Yes....I'm not overly enamoured with it but it has probably been done to pacify people in Horbury. I much preferred Ossett & Denby Dale, apart from in being more snappy. I always thought that Morley and Outwood should have been Wakefield North & Morley....but hey, whatever. Looking at the comments I think it was more to do with Wakefield South and Wakefield Rural than Horbury. To be honest it is a bit of a leftovers seat and those are often not easy to come up with good names for, though I'm not sure that it's any worse for Wakefield South to be in a constituency called "Ossett & Denby Dale" than one called "Hemsworth" as it is now. It came from their attempts to manage the knock-on effects of moving Rastrick into Huddersfield. That meant that something else had to come out of Huddersfield; their choice was Almondbury, which to be fair is the most peripheral of the plausible options, to go into the Denby Dale etc. seat, and that meant something had to come out of that seat at the other end. They could have avoided splitting Ossett by splitting Horbury & South Ossett ward so that Horbury went with Denby Dale and all Ossett with Dewsbury. But I think that Rastrick into Huddersfield was a bad idea, partly because of those knock-on effects, and the BCE haven't gone for it. Well, to be fair it is a bloody nightmare trying to draw these things up. I have tried it before and it was very Rubics Cube |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 10, 2022 22:40:57 GMT
That's definitely an attitude within the Commission of "we have precedents, and if you don't like them, we have others!" Looking at a map, there could be three neighbouring constituencies of Morley, Pudsey, and Headingley. This looks like a pattern or precedent where "Leeds" is no longer required as a prefix. That would make some sense... except they've proposed that a more outlying seat than the three you mention is called Leeds North West - mentioning "Leeds" as a prefix. I have made a submission on the matter suggesting they take a consistent approach - either rename "Leeds North West" to something like Otley or Wharfedale or add a Leeds prefix to Headingley. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 11, 2022 9:36:45 GMT
That's definitely an attitude within the Commission of "we have precedents, and if you don't like them, we have others!" Looking at a map, there could be three neighbouring constituencies of Morley, Pudsey, and Headingley. This looks like a pattern or precedent where "Leeds" is no longer required as a prefix. That would make some sense... except they've proposed that a more outlying seat than the three you mention is called Leeds North West - mentioning "Leeds" as a prefix. I have made a submission on the matter suggesting they take a consistent approach - either rename "Leeds North West" to something like Otley or Wharfedale or add a Leeds prefix to Headingley.
I think where a LA comprises a larger area going well beyond the town or city for which it is named, then constituency names should be understood as relating to the actual town or city, not to the LA area as a whole. For instance, only three of Bradford's five seats have 'Bradford' in the name; and the name 'Bradford West' makes sense only in the context of Bradford specifically, not of the LA as a whole.
So it's fair for Morley to be called just that, with no Leeds prefix. The proposed Leeds NW is a tricky case because it contains some of the city proper, but not very much. 'Otley' would be a reasonable name (and existed 1885-1918) but 'Leeds NW' isn't outrageous. 'Headingley', on the other hand, is wholly within Leeds proper and indeed includes most of the city centre so it really ought to have a Leeds prefix. The second part of the name could be Headingley or, if a compass-point is preferred, 'North' and 'West' are both available although I agree that neither is particularly accurate. And the proposed 'Leeds Central' is just a misnomer and for my money should definitely be 'Leeds South' (a name with a very respectable pedigree, having been used 1885-1983).
I'd also suggest that the proposed 'Pudsey' penetrates a long way into Leeds proper for a seat without 'Leeds' in its name.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 11, 2022 9:46:31 GMT
I'd also suggest that the proposed 'Pudsey' penetrates a long way into Leeds proper for a seat without 'Leeds' in its name.
Indeed it contains Armley. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 11, 2022 10:14:04 GMT
That would make some sense... except they've proposed that a more outlying seat than the three you mention is called Leeds North West - mentioning "Leeds" as a prefix. I have made a submission on the matter suggesting they take a consistent approach - either rename "Leeds North West" to something like Otley or Wharfedale or add a Leeds prefix to Headingley.
I think where a LA comprises a larger area going well beyond the town or city for which it is named, then constituency names should be understood as relating to the actual town or city, not to the LA area as a whole. For instance, only three of Bradford's five seats have 'Bradford' in the name; and the name 'Bradford West' makes sense only in the context of Bradford specifically, not of the LA as a whole.
So it's fair for Morley to be called just that, with no Leeds prefix. The proposed Leeds NW is a tricky case because it contains some of the city proper, but not very much. 'Otley' would be a reasonable name (and existed 1885-1918) but 'Leeds NW' isn't outrageous. 'Headingley', on the other hand, is wholly within Leeds proper and indeed includes most of the city centre so it really ought to have a Leeds prefix. The second part of the name could be Headingley or, if a compass-point is preferred, 'North' and 'West' are both available although I agree that neither is particularly accurate. And the proposed 'Leeds Central' is just a misnomer and for my money should definitely be 'Leeds South' (a name with a very respectable pedigree, having been used 1885-1983).
I'd also suggest that the proposed 'Pudsey' penetrates a long way into Leeds proper for a seat without 'Leeds' in its name.
I suggested either Leeds South or Leeds South East - there seems to be a stronger "South Leeds" identity with more community groups and businesses using that as a name, but places like Halton and Burmantofts can't really be considered the south of the city. Both are former constituency names and the proposed seat actually covers roughly their combined area. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 11, 2022 17:32:21 GMT
That's definitely an attitude within the Commission of "we have precedents, and if you don't like them, we have others!" Looking at a map, there could be three neighbouring constituencies of Morley, Pudsey, and Headingley. This looks like a pattern or precedent where "Leeds" is no longer required as a prefix. And yet in Liverpool there will actually now be one additional seat with Liverpool in the name. Further proof of your opening sentence! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2022 15:17:39 GMT
That's definitely an attitude within the Commission of "we have precedents, and if you don't like them, we have others!" Looking at a map, there could be three neighbouring constituencies of Morley, Pudsey, and Headingley. This looks like a pattern or precedent where "Leeds" is no longer required as a prefix. Morley and Pudsey make sense though. They are identifiably examples of ‘towns within a city’. They are removed enough to have their own sense of individuality, separateness, identity. Headingley on the other hand is really just… an area of Leeds. I don’t see the commission’s logic with this one. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 12, 2022 15:27:06 GMT
That's definitely an attitude within the Commission of "we have precedents, and if you don't like them, we have others!" Looking at a map, there could be three neighbouring constituencies of Morley, Pudsey, and Headingley. This looks like a pattern or precedent where "Leeds" is no longer required as a prefix. Morley and Pudsey make sense though. They are identifiably examples of ‘towns within a city’. They are removed enough to have their own sense of individuality, separateness, identity. Headingley on the other hand is really just… an area of Leeds. I don’t see the commission’s logic with this one. There are probably even places which are suburbs rather than towns which would make sense in constituency names. I could theoretically imagine constituencies called "Gosforth" or "Bulwell" even though both are suburbs as opposed to separate towns. But Headingley is much more inner city than that - and crucially the proposed Headingley constituency includes Leeds city centre! Not mentioning Leeds in the name is madness. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 14, 2022 18:10:42 GMT
Comment submitted, entirely on names. It appears that it will have a fair amount in common with some others.
|
|
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 Nov 18, 2022 21:00:41 GMT
Morley and Pudsey make sense though. They are identifiably examples of ‘towns within a city’. They are removed enough to have their own sense of individuality, separateness, identity. Headingley on the other hand is really just… an area of Leeds. I don’t see the commission’s logic with this one. There are probably even places which are suburbs rather than towns which would make sense in constituency names. I could theoretically imagine constituencies called "Gosforth" or "Bulwell" even though both are suburbs as opposed to separate towns. But Headingley is much more inner city than that - and crucially the proposed Headingley constituency includes Leeds city centre! Not mentioning Leeds in the name is madness. I have a strong preference for [City name + locale] as a construct for seats wholly within large LAs so 'Leeds Headingley' would be the ideal name for this seat. I somewhat lament all the great names we have lost over the years - especially in Scotland: Glasgow Cathcart, Edinburgh Pentlands and soforth. |
|
|
|
Post by richardh on Dec 2, 2022 16:57:40 GMT
Rachel Reeves has had some publicity for visiting a very worthy project in Farsley, at present part of the Conservative-held Pudsey constituency but soon to be included in a new Pudsey seat with some wards from her Leeds West constituency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2022 10:44:30 GMT
Losing both "Elmet" and "Ainsty" from the constituency map doesn't feel right.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 4, 2022 11:48:49 GMT
The latter should arguably never have been included in the first place.....
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 4, 2022 12:27:58 GMT
Losing both "Elmet" and "Ainsty" from the constituency map doesn't feel right. For me the demise is long overdue. Two utterly bloody silly names that may be a bit familiar now but were completely unknown to virtually the entire population and had no significance to anything at all and left most of us having no idea where they were or why they were chosen? They are like Bassetlaw, Erewash, Arfon, Clwyd anything, North Hykeham, the Deepings, Eddisbury, in being totally fuck-witted ideas. A constituency name should try to be one word prefereably a well known town, or an established well known place perhaps with a north or south if necessary. The recouse to use of non-English names is a mistake for general use especially when difficult to pronounce. The current name for the Western Isles is bloody absurd and serves no purpose other than grandstanding to the usual suspects who are a vanishingly small minority with very loud voices. Scotland also has many rank stupid overlong names. When all the new constituencies are settled and published I shall produce a list of all those I reject with a proper appropriate name that should have been used. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 4, 2022 12:55:05 GMT
The latter should arguably never have been included in the first place..... I don’t think either was a good choice in the first place. The actual boundaries of “Elmet” are pretty obscure AIUI, and one of the main associations I have with the name is Sherburn in it, and that has never been in the constituency; “Wetherby & Garforth” or similar would have been better. The Ainsty’s boundaries, on the other hand, are well enough known, but aren’t a very good fit for the non-Selby bits of the constituency. I don’t mind historical references even if they are a bit obscure, but I think they should be reasonably accurate. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 4, 2022 13:08:52 GMT
Elmet seems to have covered, roughly, modern West Yorkshire apart from the area around Keighley, which is why it was always an odd choice of name for any individual constituency.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 4, 2022 13:40:19 GMT
The latter should arguably never have been included in the first place..... I don’t think either was a good choice in the first place. The actual boundaries of “Elmet” are pretty obscure AIUI, and one of the main associations I have with the name is Sherburn in it, and that has never been in the constituency; “Wetherby & Garforth” or similar would have been better. The Ainsty’s boundaries, on the other hand, are well enough known, but aren’t a very good fit for the non-Selby bits of the constituency. I don’t mind historical references even if they are a bit obscure, but I think they should be reasonably accurate. Why not opt for the simplicity of Selby and then of Wetherby. These are old established names that are well known by any educated and interested person? A name is just a base indicator of roughly where that constituency is. It serves no other purpose. It does not need to relate to local authority areas, regions, ancient history, wapentakes, hundreds, ranges of hills, rivers or any thing else at all. Just quote a well know town in it and leave it at that. As instance, Bassetlaw would be improved as North Notts or better Worksop. Not 'Worksop and Retford', not 'Worksop and the Dukeries', not 'Sherwood Forest North' and not 'The Major Oak, Edwinstow, Worksop and the Dukeries, not forgetting the important town of Retford'! Keep it short, obvious and direct. Remove all complications and fluff. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Dec 4, 2022 13:52:51 GMT
I don’t think either was a good choice in the first place. The actual boundaries of “Elmet” are pretty obscure AIUI, and one of the main associations I have with the name is Sherburn in it, and that has never been in the constituency; “Wetherby & Garforth” or similar would have been better. The Ainsty’s boundaries, on the other hand, are well enough known, but aren’t a very good fit for the non-Selby bits of the constituency. I don’t mind historical references even if they are a bit obscure, but I think they should be reasonably accurate. Why not opt for the simplicity of Selby and then of Wetherby. These are old established names that are well known by any educated and interested person? A name is just a base indicator of roughly where that constituency is. It serves no other purpose. It does not need to relate to local authority areas, regions, ancient history, wapentakes, hundreds, ranges of hills, rivers or any thing else at all. Just quote a well know town in it and leave it at that. As instance, Bassetlaw would be improved as North Notts or better Worksop. Not 'Worksop and Retford', not 'Worksop and the Dukeries', not 'Sherwood Forest North' and not 'The Major Oak, Edwinstow, Worksop and the Dukeries, not forgetting the important town of Retford'! Keep it short, obvious and direct. Remove all complications and fluff. I broadly agree with this, except in a few cases where a seat is made up of two very equal and distinct parts, and there is no historical reason for one - eg Hitchin and Harpenden as was being discussed the other day |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 4, 2022 14:05:14 GMT
As instance, Bassetlaw would be improved as North Notts or better Worksop. Not 'Worksop and Retford', not 'Worksop and the Dukeries', not 'Sherwood Forest North' and not 'The Major Oak, Edwinstow, Worksop and the Dukeries, not forgetting the important town of Retford'! Keep it short, obvious and direct. Remove all complications and fluff. Rhodesia? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 4, 2022 14:06:17 GMT
I don’t think either was a good choice in the first place. The actual boundaries of “Elmet” are pretty obscure AIUI, and one of the main associations I have with the name is Sherburn in it, and that has never been in the constituency; “Wetherby & Garforth” or similar would have been better. The Ainsty’s boundaries, on the other hand, are well enough known, but aren’t a very good fit for the non-Selby bits of the constituency. I don’t mind historical references even if they are a bit obscure, but I think they should be reasonably accurate. Why not opt for the simplicity of Selby and then of Wetherby. These are old established names that are well known by any educated and interested person? A name is just a base indicator of roughly where that constituency is. It serves no other purpose. It does not need to relate to local authority areas, regions, ancient history, wapentakes, hundreds, ranges of hills, rivers or any thing else at all. Just quote a well know town in it and leave it at that. As instance, Bassetlaw would be improved as North Notts or better Worksop. Not 'Worksop and Retford', not 'Worksop and the Dukeries', not 'Sherwood Forest North' and not 'The Major Oak, Edwinstow, Worksop and the Dukeries, not forgetting the important town of Retford'! Keep it short, obvious and direct. Remove all complications and fluff. Whilst I agree with your approach on principle (and in fact the BCE, BCS, and BCW all did so the majority of the time before 1983) the problem is that during consultations residents of other towns within a proposed constituency frequently object to having their town being left out of the constituency name, even if it is within the same local authority-hence why Leominster was changed to North Herefordshire in 2010 for example. Hence why a lot of wapentake and local authority names are used to avoid arguments. |
|
