|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2022 17:55:47 GMT
I was just thinking-given the Boundary Commission's practice for constituencies crossing between the borders of a major city and a metropolitan borough or non-city authority (e.g. Blackley & Broughton, Garston & Halewood), should not the proposed Bristol North East be renamed Eastville & Mangotsfield?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 9, 2022 18:50:10 GMT
I was just thinking-given the Boundary Commission's practice for constituencies crossing between the borders of a major city and a metropolitan borough or non-city authority (e.g. Blackley & Broughton, Garston & Halewood), should not the proposed Bristol North East be renamed Eastville & Mangotsfield? No. They should be renamed Manchester Blackley and Liverpool Garston
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2022 19:33:06 GMT
I was just thinking-given the Boundary Commission's practice for constituencies crossing between the borders of a major city and a metropolitan borough or non-city authority (e.g. Blackley & Broughton, Garston & Halewood), should not the proposed Bristol North East be renamed Eastville & Mangotsfield? No. They should be renamed Manchester Blackley and Liverpool Garston See also Wythenshawe & Sale East. (Morley & Outwood and Penistone & Stocksbridge do not really count because Morley was not part of Leeds until 1974; the same goes for Stocksbridge in relation to Sheffield). By this track, Brighton Kemptown should really be called Kemptown & Peacehaven.
|
|
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 Jul 12, 2022 22:29:49 GMT
No. They should be renamed Manchester Blackley and Liverpool Garston See also Wythenshawe & Sale East. (Morley & Outwood and Penistone & Stocksbridge do not really count because Morley was not part of Leeds until 1974; the same goes for Stocksbridge in relation to Sheffield). By this track, Brighton Kemptown should really be called Kemptown & Peacehaven. Strongly agree. If a seat is going to cross borough boundaries then they should fucking well admit it via the constituency name. Equally a seat entirely contained within a single LA should never have an ampersand. Use a compass point or a single locality. Keep it consistent. And stop confusing electors.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jul 13, 2022 21:00:29 GMT
Strongly agree. If a seat is going to cross borough boundaries then they should fucking well admit it via the constituency name. Equally a seat entirely contained within a single LA should never have an ampersand. Use a compass point or a single locality. Keep it consistent. And stop confusing electors. What would you do about seats like Chesham & Amersham or Warwick & Leamington that have been called that forever? (especially if they contain two roughly-equally-sized places).
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,515
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2022 21:23:03 GMT
Strongly agree. If a seat is going to cross borough boundaries then they should fucking well admit it via the constituency name. Equally a seat entirely contained within a single LA should never have an ampersand. Use a compass point or a single locality. Keep it consistent. And stop confusing electors. What would you do about seats like Chesham & Amersham or Warwick & Leamington that have been called that forever? (especially if they contain two roughly-equally-sized places). And if you're not trying to 'confuse electors' then surely constituency names should only be to make sense to its own electors, no-one else. Therefore they should be as long or short as is necessary to meet that criteria (which currently is where we pretty much are).
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 13, 2022 21:28:44 GMT
Strongly agree. If a seat is going to cross borough boundaries then they should fucking well admit it via the constituency name. Equally a seat entirely contained within a single LA should never have an ampersand. Use a compass point or a single locality. Keep it consistent. And stop confusing electors. What would you do about seats like Chesham & Amersham or Warwick & Leamington that have been called that forever? (especially if they contain two roughly-equally-sized places). East Buckinghamshire and Central Warwickshire?
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2022 21:29:44 GMT
Strongly agree. If a seat is going to cross borough boundaries then they should fucking well admit it via the constituency name. Equally a seat entirely contained within a single LA should never have an ampersand. Use a compass point or a single locality. Keep it consistent. And stop confusing electors. What would you do about seats like Chesham & Amersham or Warwick & Leamington that have been called that forever? (especially if they contain two roughly-equally-sized places).
I don't care what seats were called in the past if they're badly named now - and that is true whether the names were once apt or if they've always been shit.
These days, with Bucks being unitary, I would call the seat Chesham & Amersham seat 'Chalfont'. Or possibly 'The Chalfonts'.
Warwick and Leamington is one of the most stupidly-named seats of all. It's not Warwick PLUS something, it's a *subset* of wards all contained wholly within Warwick, some of which are the Leamington ones. On current boundaries 'Warwick South' would clearly be the right name for the seat. 'Warwick Leamington' would be an acceptable alternative, provided there was a corresponding 'Warwick Kenilworth & (whatever)'.
These things matter to me far more than trivialities like Brexit and Climate Change. They matter more to me than equal sized seats too. I'd support bloody Tugendhat if he pledged to give sensible, logical, consistent directives to the Boundary Commission!
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jul 14, 2022 3:06:06 GMT
I don't care what seats were called in the past if they're badly named now - and that is true whether the names were once apt or if they've always been shit. These days, with Bucks being unitary, I would call the seat Chesham & Amersham seat 'Chalfont'. Or possibly 'The Chalfonts'. Warwick and Leamington is one of the most stupidly-named seats of all. It's not Warwick PLUS something, it's a *subset* of wards all contained wholly within Warwick, some of which are the Leamington ones. On current boundariesĀ 'Warwick South' would clearly be the right name for the seat. 'Warwick Leamington' would be an acceptable alternative, provided there was a corresponding 'Warwick Kenilworth & (whatever)'. These things matter to me far more than trivialities like Brexit and Climate Change. They matter more to me than equal sized seats too. I'd support bloody Tugendhat if he pledged to give sensible, logical, consistent directives to the Boundary Commission! Hmm. I think as soon as you try to set rigid rules for this, you end up looking silly somewhere around the edges. A seat called 'Warwick N & Southam' containing no part of Warwick. Not at all confusing (!). What would you do with Epsom & Ewell ? Does Hertford & Stortford have to become 'Central East Hertfordshire' ? I'm sure that would be far less confusing for all concerned And so on. Yet presumably you're quite content to retain the hideous 'Central Suffolk & Ipswich N' or 'Basildon S & Thurrock E'? Ugh.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,023
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 14, 2022 6:22:18 GMT
What would you do about seats like Chesham & Amersham or Warwick & Leamington that have been called that forever? (especially if they contain two roughly-equally-sized places).
I don't care what seats were called in the past if they're badly named now - and that is true whether the names were once apt or if they've always been shit.
These days, with Bucks being unitary, I would call the seat Chesham & Amersham seat 'Chalfont'. Or possibly 'The Chalfonts'.
Warwick and Leamington is one of the most stupidly-named seats of all. It's not Warwick PLUS something, it's a *subset* of wards all contained wholly within Warwick, some of which are the Leamington ones. On current boundaries 'Warwick South' would clearly be the right name for the seat. 'Warwick Leamington' would be an acceptable alternative, provided there was a corresponding 'Warwick Kenilworth & (whatever)'.
These things matter to me far more than trivialities like Brexit and Climate Change. They matter more to me than equal sized seats too. I'd support bloody Tugendhat if he pledged to give sensible, logical, consistent directives to the Boundary Commission!
This theory labours under the false illusion that people feel an affinity to their local authority district (or even any idea what it is). Iām not sure thereās a single person alive who, when asked where theyāre from, would answer with Babergh, Eden, Erewash, Hart or Rother. And having lived in Warwickshire for most of my life, I can tell you with great certainty that people in Kenilworth in no way identify as being part of a wider Warwick district. If your aim is to reduce confusion then calling a constituency āWarwick Kenilworth and Stratford Southamā would be one of the most confusing examples of nomenclature even imposed upon the world.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,279
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 14, 2022 6:53:59 GMT
The idea that Warwick & Leamington is a badly named constituency really takes the biscuit.
As for the proposed Bristol North East, it's really quite similar to the seat which existed under that name from 1955 to 1974, which included Mangotsfield. I definitely think the name should include "Bristol" (and I would express analogous opinions regarding Blackley & Broughton and Garston & Halewood) and while I'm generally sympathetic to acknowledging major boundary crossings in names, in this case I suspect most of the people in the proposed constituency who don't live in the Bristol City Council area will nevertheless tell people they live in Bristol if anyone from outside that urban area asks them where they're from. If you look on the very first page of this thread you can see that I originally suggested "Bristol Kingswood" for it.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 10:16:08 GMT
What would you do about seats like Chesham & Amersham or Warwick & Leamington that have been called that forever? (especially if they contain two roughly-equally-sized places). I don't care what seats were called in the past if they're badly named now - and that is true whether the names were once apt or if they've always been shit.
These days, with Bucks being unitary, I would call the seat Chesham & Amersham seat 'Chalfont'. Or possibly 'The Chalfonts'. Warwick and Leamington is one of the most stupidly-named seats of all. It's not Warwick PLUS something, it's a *subset* of wards all contained wholly within Warwick, some of which are the Leamington ones. On current boundaries 'Warwick South' would clearly be the right name for the seat. 'Warwick Leamington' would be an acceptable alternative, provided there was a corresponding 'Warwick Kenilworth & (whatever)'.
These things matter to me far more than trivialities like Brexit and Climate Change. They matter more to me than equal sized seats too. I'd support bloody Tugendhat if he pledged to give sensible, logical, consistent directives to the Boundary Commission!
They do matter more than climate change but why would you support Tugendhat if he advocated sensible constituency names when you have just laid out in detail how you are in favour of the opposite of sensible names?
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jul 14, 2022 14:40:37 GMT
Iām not sure thereās a single person alive who, when asked where theyāre from, would answer with Babergh, Eden, Erewash, Hart or Rother. Personally I was very surprised at the local backlash against the proposal of renaming Erewash constituency Ilkeston & Long Eaton. Lots of people saying that in fact they are from Erewash rather than one of the named towns.
|
|
|
Post by frankyank on Jul 14, 2022 15:46:37 GMT
This is why the review should just adopt the simple and elegant names of ENG-001 through ENG-533. No debates necessary.
(A joke, if it must be said)
|
|
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 Jul 17, 2022 17:28:33 GMT
Iām not sure thereās a single person alive who, when asked where theyāre from, would answer with Babergh, Eden, Erewash, Hart or Rother. Personally I was very surprised at the local backlash against the proposal of renaming Erewash constituency Ilkeston & Long Eaton. Lots of people saying that in fact they are from Erewash rather than one of the named towns. Where a Local Authority is a ragbag of different places I tend to favour an abstract or ancient name over just picking out one or more of the places within. Wigan is a town in Wigan in Greater Manchester. True but clunky and borderline nonsensical.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,849
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Nov 7, 2022 21:59:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 22:18:06 GMT
Doesn't look like they've done anything very useful here, nor listened to any reason
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 8, 2022 0:07:42 GMT
The Tiverton and Minehead abomination survives, as does Mid Dorset & N Poole (the latter at least has the advantage of being an existing arrangement). Totnes is now Devon South for some reason despite still containing the eponymous town, the unnecessary South Cotswolds cross-county seat has an orphan ward from Stroud district, whilst the equally unneeded 'Somerset North East and Hanham' is compounded by a terrible name.
Elsewhere, things look okay-to-good, mind you, so the Commissioners may be minded to dig their heels in about some of the more objectionable proposals for the sake of not messing with the decent constituencies too much.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 8, 2022 0:26:14 GMT
I think this is the region where they've done the worst job overall
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,279
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Nov 8, 2022 7:53:16 GMT
The Tiverton and Minehead abomination survives, as does Mid Dorset & N Poole (the latter at least has the advantage of being an existing arrangement). Totnes is now Devon South for some reason despite still containing the eponymous town, the unnecessary South Cotswolds cross-county seat has an orphan ward from Stroud district, whilst the equally unneeded 'Somerset North East and Hanham' is compounded by a terrible name. Elsewhere, things look okay-to-good, mind you, so the Commissioners may be minded to dig their heels in about some of the more objectionable proposals for the sake of not messing with the decent constituencies too much. I think the thing is that they are quite reluctant to change things when they are supported by all the "qualifying political parties", and those did all support the BCE's subregions. I didn't expect much change here to be honest, and certainly I didn't expect my proposal to be adopted. "North East Somerset & Hanham" may not be the best name but it is better than the originally proposed name, which completely ignored the Gloucestershire component, and it's also better than the monstrous "North East Somerset & South Gloucestershire South" proposed by the Tories.
|
|