|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 4, 2022 14:08:55 GMT
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 You make a very pertinent point there and I can live with a two-hander of that nature as long as it has some history and makes good sense and cutting down to one name would be a detraction or actually confusing of itself. Where both towns are much of a size, or define the two ends of a lozenge shape or are both well known to public at large, it sells itself. But Shrewsbury and Atcham is absurd nonsense. Louth and Horncastle should just be Louth. Harrogate and Knaresborough should just be Harrogate. Scarborough and Whitby, I lean to Scarborough but Whity is well established and has been cited for generations, gives an idea of geographical spread and is as well known as its larger partner. The emphass for me should always be on clarity, brevity and concision. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 4, 2022 14:12:16 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? I refuse to Bantu with you over such UDI ephemera. I ought to know this but think that it is in Rother Valley? Anyway it is west and must virtually be in Wales Arthur. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 4, 2022 14:32:00 GMT
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) he 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. The obvious answer is to nod intelligently and carefully follow their submission, send a very polite reply and then totally ignore them. As a proportion of the actual electorate such people are a vanishingly small element and must be ignored if we are to have reasonable names and to avoid damn fool nonsense. This is just one problem of the modern age. We listen to and act upon far too much utter dross. Just go for the simple name and ignore the flak. It soon passes. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 4, 2022 16:10:22 GMT
Certainly agree re Elmet - truth is nobody's really sure where it was, so it's a very silly constituency name or part-name - but Clwyd was a county council for a number of years & would have been a name everybody locally would have known and some of the towns in the Clwyd constituencies are pretty obscure. Although for example naming a constituency Rhyl & Denbigh for example, or even just Rhyl, would give a reasonable idea of where it was. South Clwyd I think is a justifiable constituency name as the constituent towns are all fairly obscure, even if not necessarily that small; the best-known town, Llangollen, is not the largest in the constituency, and is not typical of it either.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 4, 2022 16:13:04 GMT
South Clwyd I think is a justifiable constituency name as the constituent towns are all fairly obscure, even if not necessarily that small; the best-known town, Llangollen, is not the largest in the constituency, and is not typical of it either. The obvious solution in that case was always to name it for the river that runs through the length of the constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 4, 2022 17:44:33 GMT
Erewash is also a silly name, even though it is a borough; it forms the boundary between that constituency and others, rather than running through its centre.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 4, 2022 17:46:38 GMT
Erewash is also a silly name, even though it is a borough; it forms the boundary between that constituency and others, rather than running through its centre. Especially odd as there's an obvious 'X and X' name for that one as well. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Dec 4, 2022 21:04:30 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. Fully agree with you and look forward to your list to come. Have a sick bucket ready - below this is one of the actual comments on the Bassetlaw -> Worksop & Retford proposal (which must have been heeded as I think it has reverted back to Bassetlaw) Quick! You have a few hours left to counter-propose! Back to topic and on Yorkshire - at least given the size of the region there aren't too many 'sentimental' names left given no more Elmet etc though a few new ones are now born... 'the Wolds'... What do you make of Richmond and Northallerton. The latter is the largest town (double the population!) and it does away with the awkward brackets (Yorks) whilst not causing confusion with London's one, but no doubt there is a lot of sentimentality attached to 'Richmond' which is why I assume they didn't take the opportunity to just call it Northallerton. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,841
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 4, 2022 21:54:42 GMT
I put my submission in a couple of hours ago, re-iterating my recommendation to make a cleaner line on the map with the Richmond ward split in Sheffield to avoid baking in a defaced boundary that zig-zags through the middle of a school.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexrichards on Dec 5, 2022 19:09:31 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. Erewash is also a silly name, even though it is a borough; it forms the boundary between that constituency and others, rather than running through its centre. Erewash is also a silly name, even though it is a borough; it forms the boundary between that constituency and others, rather than running through its centre. Especially odd as there's an obvious 'X and X' name for that one as well. This entire discussion is hilarious to me because the one thing that basically everyone locally agreed was that 'Erewash' was a nice snappy name that clearly indicated where it was whereas 'Ilkeston and Long Eaton' was a horrendous mouthful that ignored a fair chunk of the population (less if you include Sawley in Long Eaton, but Sawley has spent the last Century defining themselves as Not Long Eaton so...). Simple fact is that the constituency has been Erewash for as long as Ilkeston and Long Eaton have been put in the same constituency in the modern era (There was the 1885-1918 grouping under 'Ilkeston', but that's the days of a Progressive Coalition being between the Liberals and the Co-Operative Society so pretty irrelevant.) |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 5, 2022 20:02:54 GMT
Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a far more accurate name & they are clearly the largest towns in the seat. Other than in a compact urban seat in certain circumstances, some voters are always going to be disappointed if they expect their locality to be mentioned in a constituency title. Some names are better than others. The Erewash isn't a well-enough known river for most people to know where it is and the towns, while not exactly metropolises, are a little better-known. Not many voters live that far from either Ilkeston or Long Eaton.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 5, 2022 20:08:12 GMT
This entire discussion is hilarious to me because the one thing that basically everyone locally agreed was that 'Erewash' was a nice snappy name that clearly indicated where it was whereas 'Ilkeston and Long Eaton' was a horrendous mouthful that ignored a fair chunk of the population (less if you include Sawley in Long Eaton, but Sawley has spent the last Century defining themselves as Not Long Eaton so...). This is another example of the Sutton Coldfield principle - if you devote that much of your identity to claiming you're not X, it's because you're X and everybody knows it, yourself included. |
|
|
|
Post by alexrichards on Dec 6, 2022 19:10:45 GMT
Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a far more accurate name & they are clearly the largest towns in the seat. Other than in a compact urban seat in certain circumstances, some voters are always going to be disappointed if they expect their locality to be mentioned in a constituency title. Some names are better than others. The Erewash isn't a well-enough known river for most people to know where it is and the towns, while not exactly metropolises, are a little better-known. Not many voters live that far from either Ilkeston or Long Eaton. Being pretty honest here, I don't think most people nationally would be able to tell you where Old Bexley, Shipley, Broxbourne or Stone are either. You can find them easy enough through a quick google. same applies to Erewash. Snappy name, council area, job's done. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 6, 2022 20:14:12 GMT
Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a far more accurate name & they are clearly the largest towns in the seat. Other than in a compact urban seat in certain circumstances, some voters are always going to be disappointed if they expect their locality to be mentioned in a constituency title. Some names are better than others. The Erewash isn't a well-enough known river for most people to know where it is and the towns, while not exactly metropolises, are a little better-known. Not many voters live that far from either Ilkeston or Long Eaton. Being pretty honest here, I don't think most people nationally would be able to tell you where Old Bexley, Shipley, Broxbourne or Stone are either. You can find them easy enough through a quick google. same applies to Erewash. Snappy name, council area, job's done. I disagree. I have never really known where Erewash is (it sounds vaguely from Norfolk/Lincs) or why it is so named and I doubt if 80% of those interested in the subject do. Yet I knew precisely where your other examples were as a teenager if the 50s. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 6, 2022 20:41:30 GMT
Being pretty honest here, I don't think most people nationally would be able to tell you where Old Bexley, Shipley, Broxbourne or Stone are either. You can find them easy enough through a quick google. same applies to Erewash. Snappy name, council area, job's done. I disagree. I have never really known where Erewash is (it sounds vaguely from Norfolk/Lincs) or why it is so named and I doubt if 80% of those interested in the subject do. Yet I knew precisely where your other examples were as a teenager if the 50s. It's just downriver from Erewhon. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 6, 2022 21:48:06 GMT
Being pretty honest here, I don't think most people nationally would be able to tell you where Old Bexley, Shipley, Broxbourne or Stone are either. You can find them easy enough through a quick google. same applies to Erewash. Snappy name, council area, job's done. I disagree. I have never really known where Erewash is (it sounds vaguely from Norfolk/Lincs) or why it is so named and I doubt if 80% of those interested in the subject do. Yet I knew precisely where your other examples were as a teenager if the 50s. Your railway knowledge is clearly lacking. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Dec 6, 2022 23:05:05 GMT
Ilkeston & Long Eaton is a far more accurate name & they are clearly the largest towns in the seat. Other than in a compact urban seat in certain circumstances, some voters are always going to be disappointed if they expect their locality to be mentioned in a constituency title. Some names are better than others. The Erewash isn't a well-enough known river for most people to know where it is and the towns, while not exactly metropolises, are a little better-known. Not many voters live that far from either Ilkeston or Long Eaton. Being pretty honest here, I don't think most people nationally would be able to tell you where Old Bexley, Shipley, Broxbourne or Stone are either. You can find them easy enough through a quick google. same applies to Erewash. Snappy name, council area, job's done. Controversial idea, perhaps the convention normally reserved for cities of prefixing the lesser-known area's name with the well-known city's name could apply to all cities and counties in the case of county constituencies. So you'd have London Bexley, Bradford Shipley (pitchfork bait I know, but tough), Hertfordshire Brox towebourne, Staffordshire Stone, etc. Thereby you lengthen the name by a word but pretty much solve the issue of national identifiability (no need to google) and keep the NIMBYs happy (generally). County and compass points would remain the same. So you'd have Norfolk South West, but also Norfolk Broadlands, etc... Derbyshire Dales, Derbyshire North East, Derbyshire Bolsover, etc. Yes, people normally in conversation say it in order town, city, county but having the county/city first would mean all the seats appear in order in any list. This concept doesn't appear to be entirely new here either - some of the older northern constituencies had the full name for example 'South East Lancashire, Gorton Division' and particularly pertinent for 'South West Lancashire, Ince Division' which is definitely a contender for one of the smallest/obscure places to appear on the national map! and so on. The only difficulty to keep to brevity (and irony in my case) is what would you do for Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, etc. Wigan and Bolton are well-known in their own right, but who decides that? Wigan Leigh and Wigan Makerfield would be fine, no need to prefix with Greater Manchester/Lancashire, but what would you do for Ashton or Stalybridge. Tameside helps no-one, so Greater Manchester: Ashton-Under-Lyne? [West] Yorkshire Dewsbury instead of Kirklees Dewsbury?! We would still be a world ahead of the US with its random numbers, Australia with its niche 'named after a local historical figure' or German name-every-district-contained-within (a la Merkel's former Vorpommern-Rügen–Vorpommern-Greifswald I) systems. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 7, 2022 9:02:59 GMT
Being pretty honest here, I don't think most people nationally would be able to tell you where Old Bexley, Shipley, Broxbourne or Stone are either. You can find them easy enough through a quick google. same applies to Erewash. Snappy name, council area, job's done. Controversial idea, perhaps the convention normally reserved for cities of prefixing the lesser-known area's name with the well-known city's name could apply to all cities and counties in the case of county constituencies. So you'd have London Bexley, Bradford Shipley (pitchfork bait I know, but tough), Hertfordshire Brox towebourne, Staffordshire Stone, etc. Thereby you lengthen the name by a word but pretty much solve the issue of national identifiability (no need to google) and keep the NIMBYs happy (generally). County and compass points would remain the same. So you'd have Norfolk South West, but also Norfolk Broadlands, etc... Derbyshire Dales, Derbyshire North East, Derbyshire Bolsover, etc. Yes, people normally in conversation say it in order town, city, county but having the county/city first would mean all the seats appear in order in any list. This concept doesn't appear to be entirely new here either - some of the older northern constituencies had the full name for example 'South East Lancashire, Gorton Division' and particularly pertinent for 'South West Lancashire, Ince Division' which is definitely a contender for one of the smallest/obscure places to appear on the national map! and so on. The only difficulty to keep to brevity (and irony in my case) is what would you do for Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, etc. Wigan and Bolton are well-known in their own right, but who decides that? Wigan Leigh and Wigan Makerfield would be fine, no need to prefix with Greater Manchester/Lancashire, but what would you do for Ashton or Stalybridge. Tameside helps no-one, so Greater Manchester: Ashton-Under-Lyne? [West] Yorkshire Dewsbury instead of Kirklees Dewsbury?! We would still be a world ahead of the US with its random numbers, Australia with its niche 'named after a local historical figure' or German name-every-district-contained-within (a la Merkel's former Vorpommern-Rügen–Vorpommern-Greifswald I) systems. What about cross county seats? "North Yorkshire Selby & Leeds Kippax"? "North Yorkshire & Leeds, Selby"? Or if you want one where you can't just say "Yorkshire", how about "Doncaster East & Lincolnshire Axholme" or "Doncaster & Lincolnshire, Finningley & Axholme"? Ontario's Leeds is in the interestingly named "Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes" riding, which has an even longer name than "West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2022 9:14:44 GMT
Controversial idea, perhaps the convention normally reserved for cities of prefixing the lesser-known area's name with the well-known city's name could apply to all cities and counties in the case of county constituencies. So you'd have London Bexley, Bradford Shipley (pitchfork bait I know, but tough), Hertfordshire Brox towebourne, Staffordshire Stone, etc. Thereby you lengthen the name by a word but pretty much solve the issue of national identifiability (no need to google) and keep the NIMBYs happy (generally). County and compass points would remain the same. So you'd have Norfolk South West, but also Norfolk Broadlands, etc... Derbyshire Dales, Derbyshire North East, Derbyshire Bolsover, etc. Yes, people normally in conversation say it in order town, city, county but having the county/city first would mean all the seats appear in order in any list. This concept doesn't appear to be entirely new here either - some of the older northern constituencies had the full name for example 'South East Lancashire, Gorton Division' and particularly pertinent for 'South West Lancashire, Ince Division' which is definitely a contender for one of the smallest/obscure places to appear on the national map! and so on. The only difficulty to keep to brevity (and irony in my case) is what would you do for Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, etc. Wigan and Bolton are well-known in their own right, but who decides that? Wigan Leigh and Wigan Makerfield would be fine, no need to prefix with Greater Manchester/Lancashire, but what would you do for Ashton or Stalybridge. Tameside helps no-one, so Greater Manchester: Ashton-Under-Lyne? [West] Yorkshire Dewsbury instead of Kirklees Dewsbury?! We would still be a world ahead of the US with its random numbers, Australia with its niche 'named after a local historical figure' or German name-every-district-contained-within (a la Merkel's former Vorpommern-Rügen–Vorpommern-Greifswald I) systems. What about cross county seats? "North Yorkshire Selby & Leeds Kippax"? "North Yorkshire & Leeds, Selby"? Or if you want one where you can't just say "Yorkshire", how about "Doncaster East & Lincolnshire Axholme" or "Doncaster & Lincolnshire, Finningley & Axholme"? Ontario's Leeds is in the interestingly named "Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes" riding, which has an even longer name than "West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country". The proposed Blackpool South could be "South Shore—Layton—Golden Mile" |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,841
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 28, 2023 11:05:27 GMT
Sheffield unchanged. They didn't take my recommendation to clean up the boundary through the split ward, unneccessarilly sticking to an arbitary polling district boundary, so slicing straight through Prince Edward's School and houses on Hangthwaite Close.
|
|
