Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2022 15:00:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 8, 2022 16:13:31 GMT
That is very interesting indeed.
What it shows is that not only did Liverpool (Walton), as created in 1885, not include the village of Walton-on-the-Hill (which was outside the PB boundary); the Liverpool (West Derby) seat did not include West Derby either. I was aware of the former but not the latter. Liverpool (West Derby) included the West Derby ward of Liverpool but it seems that that ward was so named not (as I had naively assumed) because it included West Derby itself but because it comprised areas that were part of West Derby township (I don't think it had been elevated to parish status by 1885).
A similar case in another part of the country is that the seat of East Somerset as defined in 1885 did not contain a single acre of the double-seat of the same name that existed 1868-1885.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 8, 2022 17:03:08 GMT
That is very interesting indeed. What it shows is that not only did Liverpool (Walton), as created in 1885, not include the village of Walton-on-the-Hill (which was outside the PB boundary); the Liverpool (West Derby) seat did not include West Derby either. I was aware of the former but not the latter. Liverpool (West Derby) included the West Derby ward of Liverpool but it seems that that ward was so named not (as I had naively assumed) because it included West Derby itself but because it comprised areas that were part of West Derby township (I don't think it had been elevated to parish status by 1885). A similar case in another part of the country is that the seat of East Somerset as defined in 1885 did not contain a single acre of the double-seat of the same name that existed 1868-1885.
Are there any other seats with the same name but none of the same area? I think the answer is yes. I'm fairly sure Broxtowe is one. There was a mid-20th century Broxtowe seat based on Arnold and Ashfield.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 8, 2022 17:16:59 GMT
Are there any other seats with the same name but none of the same area? I think the answer is yes. I'm fairly sure Broxtowe is one. There was a mid-20th century Broxtowe seat based on Arnold and Ashfield. Based on a quick look at my new favourite site, I think not.
There was a Broxtowe seat 1918-1955 and 1983 to date, with wildly varying boundaries but I think every version of it included Kimberley.
And so far as I can see, no version of it included, er ... actual Broxtowe.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Sept 8, 2022 17:19:04 GMT
That is very interesting indeed. What it shows is that not only did Liverpool (Walton), as created in 1885, not include the village of Walton-on-the-Hill (which was outside the PB boundary); the Liverpool (West Derby) seat did not include West Derby either. I was aware of the former but not the latter. Liverpool (West Derby) included the West Derby ward of Liverpool but it seems that that ward was so named not (as I had naively assumed) because it included West Derby itself but because it comprised areas that were part of West Derby township (I don't think it had been elevated to parish status by 1885). A similar case in another part of the country is that the seat of East Somerset as defined in 1885 did not contain a single acre of the double-seat of the same name that existed 1868-1885.
Are there any other seats with the same name but none of the same area? I think the answer is yes. Tamworth, pre-1885 and 1918-45. (Edit: as islington points out below, in fact there was some overlap between the 1832-85 and 1918-45 versions, so that should be "pre-1832".)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 9, 2022 9:11:46 GMT
Are there any other seats with the same name but none of the same area? I think the answer is yes. Tamworth, pre-1885 and 1918-45. Tamworth as it existed 1918-1945 was one of the worst drawn and most ineptly named constituencies in UK history. It covered an immense area of northern Warwickshire and the great majority of its electors lay in the major towns of Solihull or Sutton Coldfield or in the Birmingham suburbs that it also contained. Tamworth itself was located at the northern end of the seat and the bulk of that town, including the town centre, lay in the Lichfield seat.
I presume the seat was called Tamworth because it was the successor to the 1885-1918 version, although that contained more of Tamworth town (but still not the town centre). As for the 1885 version, the boundary commission, which devised it, recommended the name 'Coleshill' but this was changed by Parliament, I presume for sentimental reasons to preserve the name of Sir Robert Peel's old seat. Had the 1885 review had the benefit of my input I'd have strongly pressed for 'North Warwickshire' instead.
However, the 1918-1945 Tamworth seat did contain the eastern suburbs of the town and since these were also in the 1832-1885 version, which comprised the whole of the quite extensive parish of Tamworth, there was some overlap between the two. If, however, you go back to the pre-1832 Tamworth, which was much more tightly drawn, you may well be correct to say it had no overlap with the 1918-1945 version.
In the limited review of 1945 the Tamworth seat was abolished, being divided in half to create two new and more sensibly-named seats of Sutton Coldfield and Solihull, while it also lost significant electors to the new seat of Coventry West, along with more minor adjustments to the boundaries with Nuneaton, Warwick & Leamington and Lichfield (including the removal of even more of Tamworth town into the last).
Edited to add: Huge thanks to www.parlconst.org for making these details so much easier to check.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Sept 9, 2022 9:42:31 GMT
Tamworth, pre-1885 and 1918-45. Tamworth as it existed 1918-1945 was one of the worst drawn and most ineptly named constituencies in UK history. It covered an immense area of northern Warwickshire and the great majority of its electors lay in the major towns of Solihull or Sutton Coldfield or in the Birmingham suburbs that it also contained. Tamworth itself was located at the northern end of the seat and the bulk of that town, including the town centre, lay in the Lichfield seat. I presume the seat was called Tamworth because it was the successor to the 1885-1918 version, although that contained more of Tamworth town (but still not the town centre). As for the 1885 version, the boundary commission, which devised it, recommended the name 'Coleshill' but this was changed by Parliament, I presume for sentimental reasons to preserve the name of Sir Robert Peel's old seat. Had the 1885 review had the benefit of my input I'd have strongly pressed for 'North Warwickshire' instead.
However, the 1918-1945 Tamworth seat did contain the eastern suburbs of the town and since these were also in the 1832-1885 version, which comprised the whole of the quite extensive parish of Tamworth, there was some overlap between the two. If, however, you go back to the pre-1832 Tamworth, which was much more tightly drawn, you may well be correct to say it had no overlap with the 1918-1945 version. In the limited review of 1945 the Tamworth seat was abolished, being divided in half to create two new and more sensibly-named seats of Sutton Coldfield and Solihull, while it also lost significant electors to the new seat of Coventry West, along with more minor adjustments to the boundaries with Nuneaton, Warwick & Leamington and Lichfield (including the removal of even more of Tamworth town into the last). This is correct: I'd not realised how extensive the 1832-85 version was. The 1918-45 version didn't include any of Tamworth MB as it existed when the boundaries were drawn, as it was a Warwickshire division and the MB was in Staffordshire. (What were they thinking when they kept the name?) Looking at the 1832 map, it does appear that the pre-1832 version was very tightly drawn and would have been entirely contained within the later MB, so would indeed not have overlapped with the 1918-45 "Tamworth" constituency. Incidentally I'd thought that the western boundary of the 1885-1918 version was the historic county boundary (as that hadn't yet been adjusted to put the whole town in Staffordshire; that only happened when county councils were created) and so would have run through the middle of the town. That isn't quite what parlconst.org shows, though; was there a previous adjustment of the county boundary here?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 9, 2022 11:35:07 GMT
More recently, the Newcastle Central that came into being for 1983 shared only a handful of voters with the previous Newcastle Central.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 9, 2022 13:38:04 GMT
Tamworth as it existed 1918-1945 was one of the worst drawn and most ineptly named constituencies in UK history. It covered an immense area of northern Warwickshire and the great majority of its electors lay in the major towns of Solihull or Sutton Coldfield or in the Birmingham suburbs that it also contained. Tamworth itself was located at the northern end of the seat and the bulk of that town, including the town centre, lay in the Lichfield seat. I presume the seat was called Tamworth because it was the successor to the 1885-1918 version, although that contained more of Tamworth town (but still not the town centre). As for the 1885 version, the boundary commission, which devised it, recommended the name 'Coleshill' but this was changed by Parliament, I presume for sentimental reasons to preserve the name of Sir Robert Peel's old seat. Had the 1885 review had the benefit of my input I'd have strongly pressed for 'North Warwickshire' instead.
However, the 1918-1945 Tamworth seat did contain the eastern suburbs of the town and since these were also in the 1832-1885 version, which comprised the whole of the quite extensive parish of Tamworth, there was some overlap between the two. If, however, you go back to the pre-1832 Tamworth, which was much more tightly drawn, you may well be correct to say it had no overlap with the 1918-1945 version. In the limited review of 1945 the Tamworth seat was abolished, being divided in half to create two new and more sensibly-named seats of Sutton Coldfield and Solihull, while it also lost significant electors to the new seat of Coventry West, along with more minor adjustments to the boundaries with Nuneaton, Warwick & Leamington and Lichfield (including the removal of even more of Tamworth town into the last). This is correct: I'd not realised how extensive the 1832-85 version was. The 1918-45 version didn't include any of Tamworth MB as it existed when the boundaries were drawn, as it was a Warwickshire division and the MB was in Staffordshire. (What were they thinking when they kept the name?) Looking at the 1832 map, it does appear that the pre-1832 version was very tightly drawn and would have been entirely contained within the later MB, so would indeed not have overlapped with the 1918-45 "Tamworth" constituency. Incidentally I'd thought that the western boundary of the 1885-1918 version was the historic county boundary (as that hadn't yet been adjusted to put the whole town in Staffordshire; that only happened when county councils were created) and so would have run through the middle of the town. That isn't quite what parlconst.org shows, though; was there a previous adjustment of the county boundary here?No, I think the county boundary in 1885 was still the traditional one and parlconst is in error here.
The traditional boundary went so much through the middle of the town that it split even the very tightly-drawn pre-1832 borough. As a matter of historical interest, Tamworth is one of only two Parliamentary boroughs I can think of that straddled two Parliamentary counties prior to 1832 (the other being Thetford).
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Sept 10, 2022 7:34:03 GMT
That is very interesting indeed. What it shows is that not only did Liverpool (Walton), as created in 1885, not include the village of Walton-on-the-Hill (which was outside the PB boundary); the Liverpool (West Derby) seat did not include West Derby either. I was aware of the former but not the latter. Liverpool (West Derby) included the West Derby ward of Liverpool but it seems that that ward was so named not (as I had naively assumed) because it included West Derby itself but because it comprised areas that were part of West Derby township (I don't think it had been elevated to parish status by 1885). A similar case in another part of the country is that the seat of East Somerset as defined in 1885 did not contain a single acre of the double-seat of the same name that existed 1868-1885.
Are there any other seats with the same name but none of the same area? I think the answer is yes. Is there any territory in common between the 1918 and 1997 versions of Glasgow Pollok?
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Sept 10, 2022 19:33:13 GMT
Are there any other seats with the same name but none of the same area? I think the answer is yes. Is there any territory in common between the 1918 and 1997 versions of Glasgow Pollok? As far as I can make out, there's a reasonable chunk including Pollokshields, Pollokshaws, Crossmyloof and Shawlands. But clearly most of the south west portion of the 1987 constituency was still regarded as Renfrewshire, not Glasgow, in 1918.
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Sept 11, 2022 10:03:02 GMT
Is there any territory in common between the 1918 and 1997 versions of Glasgow Pollok? As far as I can make out, there's a reasonable chunk including Pollokshields, Pollokshaws, Crossmyloof and Shawlands. But clearly most of the south west portion of the 1987 constituency was still regarded as Renfrewshire, not Glasgow, in 1918. By 1997, I meant the 1997–2005 version of the seat (apologies for not clarifying). The territory you mention was moved to Govan in 1997. So unless the most eastern bits of the 1997–2005 seat (basically Mosspark) were within Glasgow by 1918, I don't think there'd have been any overlap between the two seats.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Sept 11, 2022 10:40:36 GMT
As far as I can make out, there's a reasonable chunk including Pollokshields, Pollokshaws, Crossmyloof and Shawlands. But clearly most of the south west portion of the 1987 constituency was still regarded as Renfrewshire, not Glasgow, in 1918. By 1997, I meant the 1997–2005 version of the seat (apologies for not clarifying). The territory you mention was moved to Govan in 1997. So unless the most eastern bits of the 1997–2005 seat (basically Mosspark) were within Glasgow by 1918, I don't think there'd have been any overlap between the two seats. www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/bc_reports_1917/Glasgow_1917 shows Mosspark in Glasgow Pollok, but the overlap must have had a pretty small electorate.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Sept 11, 2022 16:45:40 GMT
This is correct: I'd not realised how extensive the 1832-85 version was. The 1918-45 version didn't include any of Tamworth MB as it existed when the boundaries were drawn, as it was a Warwickshire division and the MB was in Staffordshire. (What were they thinking when they kept the name?) Looking at the 1832 map, it does appear that the pre-1832 version was very tightly drawn and would have been entirely contained within the later MB, so would indeed not have overlapped with the 1918-45 "Tamworth" constituency. Incidentally I'd thought that the western boundary of the 1885-1918 version was the historic county boundary (as that hadn't yet been adjusted to put the whole town in Staffordshire; that only happened when county councils were created) and so would have run through the middle of the town. That isn't quite what parlconst.org shows, though; was there a previous adjustment of the county boundary here?No, I think the county boundary in 1885 was still the traditional one and parlconst is in error here.
The traditional boundary went so much through the middle of the town that it split even the very tightly-drawn pre-1832 borough. As a matter of historical interest, Tamworth is one of only two Parliamentary boroughs I can think of that straddled two Parliamentary counties prior to 1832 (the other being Thetford).
You are absolutely correct. I had inadvertently drawn the constituency boundary along the revised 1889 county boundary, which as you say was not in effect when the 1885 constituencies were introduced. Thanks for spotting this.
I have now corrected this on the parlconst website - both on the Staffordshire constituency grouping page and the 1885 constituency boundaries page, but you may need to do a page refresh to see the latest version. Apologies for this - I always like to correct any errors as soon as they are spotted. As I don't read every post on this forum, it may be best to alert me to any other potential errors either through Twitter ( parlconst) or through the contact form on the website. Thanks.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Sept 11, 2022 20:52:13 GMT
As far as I can make out, there's a reasonable chunk including Pollokshields, Pollokshaws, Crossmyloof and Shawlands. But clearly most of the south west portion of the 1987 constituency was still regarded as Renfrewshire, not Glasgow, in 1918. By 1997, I meant the 1997–2005 version of the seat (apologies for not clarifying). The territory you mention was moved to Govan in 1997. So unless the most eastern bits of the 1997–2005 seat (basically Mosspark) were within Glasgow by 1918, I don't think there'd have been any overlap between the two seats. My fault. I misread the latter date.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 11, 2022 22:47:07 GMT
No, I think the county boundary in 1885 was still the traditional one and parlconst is in error here.
The traditional boundary went so much through the middle of the town that it split even the very tightly-drawn pre-1832 borough. As a matter of historical interest, Tamworth is one of only two Parliamentary boroughs I can think of that straddled two Parliamentary counties prior to 1832 (the other being Thetford).
You are absolutely correct. I had inadvertently drawn the constituency boundary along the revised 1889 county boundary, which as you say was not in effect when the 1885 constituencies were introduced. Thanks for spotting this.
I have now corrected this on the parlconst website - both on the Staffordshire constituency grouping page and the 1885 constituency boundaries page, but you may need to do a page refresh to see the latest version. Apologies for this - I always like to correct any errors as soon as they are spotted. As I don't read every post on this forum, it may be best to alert me to any other potential errors either through Twitter ( parlconst) or through the contact form on the website. Thanks. My pleasure, but it was YL that spotted it.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 571
|
Post by nyx on Sept 12, 2022 9:51:55 GMT
This is a fascinating discussion but I am not sure its relevance to the 2023 Boundary Review in the North West of England?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 22:10:45 GMT
Bad news everybody, "West Pennine Moors" has been scrapped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 22:12:14 GMT
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,705
|
Post by iain on Nov 7, 2022 22:36:00 GMT
Far more sensible recommendations in Cumbria thankfully.
|
|