|
|
Post by loderingo on Nov 12, 2022 23:53:06 GMT
I'm doing a submission on names. My sensible idea is to rename Windsor to Windsor and Engelfield Green. I keep being drawn to Windsor Great Park (or Windsor Great Park and Langley). Would that be really horrible?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 13, 2022 8:18:15 GMT
I'm doing a submission on names. My sensible idea is to rename Windsor to Windsor and Engelfield Green. I keep being drawn to Windsor Great Park (or Windsor Great Park and Langley). Would that be really horrible? What's wrong with short names? I think they should be as short as possible. Well there are 26 possible one letter names and 676 possible two letter names, so that's more than enough. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 11:34:59 GMT
What's wrong with short names? I think they should be as short as possible. Well there are 26 possible one letter names and 676 possible two letter names, so that's more than enough. 17,576 if you're a Scottish Commissioner. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 15, 2022 16:45:18 GMT
I have been starting to study the brand new constituency I am likely to find myself living in shortly- Weald of Kent.I think the original proposal was pretty bad from my own party political point of view - creating an exceptionally safe Tory seat may make the neighbouring donor constituencies a bit more interesting, but I have to live in this monstrosity! That said , the initial proposals worked geographically and made a lot of sense in that way.The revised proposal adding 3 more Ashford wards that are rural but definitely not in the Weald (Charing, Downs West, Downs North) destroys that geographical coherence and makes the new constituency even more Tory-friendly. And probably the new Ashford seat more urban and interesting to Labour, I guess. As revised, the new constituency comprises 15 Ashford wards, 2 Tunbridge Wells ones, and 8 from Maidstone. In terms of present party holds, I think that is 19 Tory seats (4 of them unopposed), 5 independent/localist seats, and 2 Lib Dems, both in Maidstone, and one Green, gained in a by-election from the Tories. That's 27 seats- all but 2 of the wards are single member.Effectively , there is no real party-political opposition to the Tories at district level - most opposition is coming from the like of the Tunbridge Wells Alliance and the Ashford Independents. The Lib Dems are a little bit stronger in the Maidstone bit with places like Loose and Coxheath, but generally I would think all the opposition parties in the Ashford, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells constituencies will happily say goodbye to all these Tory-dominant villages that they won't have to worry about any more. In the Ashford case this is the most extreme- the only ward the LDs contested in 2019 in all those 15 wards was Downs North, where they came third with 148 votes- and since then that ward has gone to the Greens. I find this pretty trying-this is the same patch which when we first started getting involved had no real Liberal interest though it wasn't quite as blank as it is now, and where after Eileen and I started working it we had got to the point where were ahead of the Tories or closely challenging everywhere. We retired in 2003 and this is how far it has gone.  |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 15, 2022 17:01:08 GMT
I have been starting to study the brand new constituency I am likely to find myself living in shortly- Weald of Kent.I think the original proposal was pretty bad from my own party political point of view - creating an exceptionally safe Tory seat may make the neighbouring donor constituencies a bit more interesting, but I have to live in this monstrosity! That said , the initial proposals worked geographically and made a lot of sense in that way.The revised proposal adding 3 more Ashford wards that are rural but definitely not in the Weald (Charing, Downs West, Downs North) destroys that geographical coherence and makes the new constituency even more Tory-friendly. And probably the new Ashford seat more urban and interesting to Labour, I guess. As revised, the new constituency comprises 15 Ashford wards, 2 Tunbridge Wells ones, and 8 from Maidstone. In terms of present party holds, I think that is 19 Tory seats (4 of them unopposed), 5 independent/localist seats, and 2 Lib Dems, both in Maidstone, and one Green, gained in a by-election from the Tories. That's 27 seats- all but 2 of the wards are single member.Effectively , there is no real party-political opposition to the Tories at district level - most opposition is coming from the like of the Tunbridge Wells Alliance and the Ashford Independents. The Lib Dems are a little bit stronger in the Maidstone bit with places like Loose and Coxheath, but generally I would think all the opposition parties in the Ashford, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells constituencies will happily say goodbye to all these Tory-dominant villages that they won't have to worry about any more. In the Ashford case this is the most extreme- the only ward the LDs contested in 2019 in all those 15 wards was Downs North, where they came third with 148 votes- and since then that ward has gone to the Greens. I find this pretty trying-this is the same patch which when we first started getting involved had no real Liberal interest though it wasn't quite as blank as it is now, and where after Eileen and I started working it we had got to the point where were ahead of the Tories or closely challenging everywhere. We retired in 2003 and this is how far it has gone. I can empathise with you on the blue desert that seems to have been created, but I’d imagine opposition parties are pretty content. I noted that the Commission also resisted changing their Thanet plans and Labour must be happy about that. (I’ve certainly heard as much.) |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 15, 2022 17:01:20 GMT
I have been starting to study the brand new constituency I am likely to find myself living in shortly- Weald of Kent.I think the original proposal was pretty bad from my own party political point of view - creating an exceptionally safe Tory seat may make the neighbouring donor constituencies a bit more interesting, but I have to live in this monstrosity! That said , the initial proposals worked geographically and made a lot of sense in that way.The revised proposal adding 3 more Ashford wards that are rural but definitely not in the Weald (Charing, Downs West, Downs North) destroys that geographical coherence and makes the new constituency even more Tory-friendly. And probably the new Ashford seat more urban and interesting to Labour, I guess. As revised, the new constituency comprises 15 Ashford wards, 2 Tunbridge Wells ones, and 8 from Maidstone. In terms of present party holds, I think that is 19 Tory seats (4 of them unopposed), 5 independent/localist seats, and 2 Lib Dems, both in Maidstone, and one Green, gained in a by-election from the Tories. That's 27 seats- all but 2 of the wards are single member.Effectively , there is no real party-political opposition to the Tories at district level - most opposition is coming from the like of the Tunbridge Wells Alliance and the Ashford Independents. The Lib Dems are a little bit stronger in the Maidstone bit with places like Loose and Coxheath, but generally I would think all the opposition parties in the Ashford, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells constituencies will happily say goodbye to all these Tory-dominant villages that they won't have to worry about any more. In the Ashford case this is the most extreme- the only ward the LDs contested in 2019 in all those 15 wards was Downs North, where they came third with 148 votes- and since then that ward has gone to the Greens. I find this pretty trying-this is the same patch which when we first started getting involved had no real Liberal interest though it wasn't quite as blank as it is now, and where after Eileen and I started working it we had got to the point where were ahead of the Tories or closely challenging everywhere. We retired in 2003 and this is how far it has gone. Any better ideas for a name? I think I'm going to do a submission on the stupid name, 'Sussex Weald', as it excludes big swathes of such weald and the original name as suggested was perfect, Hailsham & Crowborough. So I may as well put in a better name at least for Weald of Kent, and I'll probably stick in a request for it to go back to the initial recommendation boundaries (Hawkhurst & Sandhurst continuing to be cut off from Tenterden parliamentary-wise is ridiculous). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 15, 2022 18:25:48 GMT
Why "Weald of Kent" but "Sussex Weald"?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 15, 2022 18:53:19 GMT
Why "Weald of Kent" but "Sussex Weald"? Better names for each would be Tenterden and Crowborough & Hailsham respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 15, 2022 19:12:48 GMT
Why "Weald of Kent" but "Sussex Weald"? They were going to call the first seat "Kentish Weald" but couldn't because it's from east of the Medway. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 15, 2022 19:40:24 GMT
I have been starting to study the brand new constituency I am likely to find myself living in shortly- Weald of Kent.I think the original proposal was pretty bad from my own party political point of view - creating an exceptionally safe Tory seat may make the neighbouring donor constituencies a bit more interesting, but I have to live in this monstrosity! That said , the initial proposals worked geographically and made a lot of sense in that way.The revised proposal adding 3 more Ashford wards that are rural but definitely not in the Weald (Charing, Downs West, Downs North) destroys that geographical coherence and makes the new constituency even more Tory-friendly. And probably the new Ashford seat more urban and interesting to Labour, I guess. As revised, the new constituency comprises 15 Ashford wards, 2 Tunbridge Wells ones, and 8 from Maidstone. In terms of present party holds, I think that is 19 Tory seats (4 of them unopposed), 5 independent/localist seats, and 2 Lib Dems, both in Maidstone, and one Green, gained in a by-election from the Tories. That's 27 seats- all but 2 of the wards are single member.Effectively , there is no real party-political opposition to the Tories at district level - most opposition is coming from the like of the Tunbridge Wells Alliance and the Ashford Independents. The Lib Dems are a little bit stronger in the Maidstone bit with places like Loose and Coxheath, but generally I would think all the opposition parties in the Ashford, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells constituencies will happily say goodbye to all these Tory-dominant villages that they won't have to worry about any more. In the Ashford case this is the most extreme- the only ward the LDs contested in 2019 in all those 15 wards was Downs North, where they came third with 148 votes- and since then that ward has gone to the Greens. I find this pretty trying-this is the same patch which when we first started getting involved had no real Liberal interest though it wasn't quite as blank as it is now, and where after Eileen and I started working it we had got to the point where were ahead of the Tories or closely challenging everywhere. We retired in 2003 and this is how far it has gone. Any better ideas for a name? I think I'm going to do a submission on the stupid name, 'Sussex Weald', as it excludes big swathes of such weald and the original name as suggested was perfect, Hailsham & Crowborough. So I may as well put in a better name at least for Weald of Kent, and I'll probably stick in a request for it to go back to the initial recommendation boundaries (Hawkhurst & Sandhurst continuing to be cut off from Tenterden parliamentary-wise is ridiculous). If you can find a solution which includes Hawkhurst & Sandhurst but excludes at least Downs West and North I'd be very happy, but I had the feeling that battle was already lost. If that were possible, then I wouldn't mind Weald of Kent as a name, as it would be reasonably descriptive of the area- my objection to the name is that it now includes miles of downland, not Weald. Charing could just about muster as a wealden village, even though there's a lot of downland in the ward. Town names for the constituency are quite difficult, unless you just call it Tenterden which is probably important enough to have a constituency named after it, and all the other little towns/big villages don't really cut the mustard in my eyes. Cranbrook is probably the next best, but it's too near Tenterden so doesn't add to the geographical description.The Maidstone villages add up to quite an important part of the new constituency, but really none of them really are adequate- Tenterden and Staplehurst ,say, doesnt really work , does it? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 15, 2022 19:45:41 GMT
Why "Weald of Kent" but "Sussex Weald"? Ah well, its that bit of the Weald east of the Medway. If you could find some bits of the weald west of the Medway that would be the Kentish Weald.  Say round Edenbridge/ Sevenoaks perhaps? |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 15, 2022 21:15:54 GMT
Why "Weald of Kent" but "Sussex Weald"? Ah well, its that bit of the Weald east of the Medway. If you could find some bits of the weald west of the Medway that would be the Kentish Weald. Say round Edenbridge/ Sevenoaks perhaps? I mean, if they think The Weald is important enough to be in the name of seats they may as well go whole hog and call the new Tenterden seat East Weald, Bexhill & Battle South Weald, Crowborough & Hailsham Mid Weald, Sevenoaks North Weald, and East Grinstead & Uckfield West Weald. At least that would have a bit of consistency and you wouldn't have names that couldn't just as well be plonked on a completely different seat. Best avoid the description completely (see also Arundel & South Downs...). |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 15, 2022 22:23:21 GMT
Ah well, its that bit of the Weald east of the Medway. If you could find some bits of the weald west of the Medway that would be the Kentish Weald. Say round Edenbridge/ Sevenoaks perhaps? I mean, if they think The Weald is important enough to be in the name of seats they may as well go whole hog and call the new Tenterden seat East Weald, Bexhill & Battle South Weald, Crowborough & Hailsham Mid Weald, Sevenoaks North Weald, and East Grinstead & Uckfield West Weald. At least that would have a bit of consistency and you wouldn't have names that couldn't just as well be plonked on a completely different seat. Best avoid the description completely (see also Arundel & South Downs...). Some of those names are a bit un-weald-y. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,142 
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 15, 2022 23:59:50 GMT
Ah well, its that bit of the Weald east of the Medway. If you could find some bits of the weald west of the Medway that would be the Kentish Weald. Say round Edenbridge/ Sevenoaks perhaps? I mean, if they think The Weald is important enough to be in the name of seats they may as well go whole hog and call the new Tenterden seat East Weald, Bexhill & Battle South Weald, Crowborough & Hailsham Mid Weald, Sevenoaks North Weald, and East Grinstead & Uckfield West Weald. At least that would have a bit of consistency and you wouldn't have names that couldn't just as well be plonked on a completely different seat. Best avoid the description completely (see also Arundel & South Downs...). Not in this region, but I was pondering earlier how much I dislike the newly proposed "North Cotswolds" and "South Cotswolds" arrangement too. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 16, 2022 7:56:28 GMT
I mean, if they think The Weald is important enough to be in the name of seats they may as well go whole hog and call the new Tenterden seat East Weald, Bexhill & Battle South Weald, Crowborough & Hailsham Mid Weald, Sevenoaks North Weald, and East Grinstead & Uckfield West Weald. At least that would have a bit of consistency and you wouldn't have names that couldn't just as well be plonked on a completely different seat. Best avoid the description completely (see also Arundel & South Downs...). Not in this region, but I was pondering earlier how much I dislike the newly proposed "North Cotswolds" and "South Cotswolds" arrangement too. Particulary since the North Cotswolds to me cover the area along the Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire boundaries that are well north of the BCE's "North Cotswolds". Places like Broadway, Chipping Norton, Banbury, are much more north Cotswolds than Churchdown. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 16, 2022 8:32:13 GMT
I mean, if they think The Weald is important enough to be in the name of seats they may as well go whole hog and call the new Tenterden seat East Weald, Bexhill & Battle South Weald, Crowborough & Hailsham Mid Weald, Sevenoaks North Weald, and East Grinstead & Uckfield West Weald. At least that would have a bit of consistency and you wouldn't have names that couldn't just as well be plonked on a completely different seat. Best avoid the description completely (see also Arundel & South Downs...). Not in this region, but I was pondering earlier how much I dislike the newly proposed "North Cotswolds" and "South Cotswolds" arrangement too. The South Cotswolds arrangement is acceptable but the name is not. Cirencester & Malmesbury would be better especially since the Cotswolds have never included Wiltshire. North Cotswolds needs to be redrawn to include Quedgeley instead of Longlevens and Elmbridge and should be renamed Mid Gloucestershire. |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Nov 16, 2022 8:42:53 GMT
Not in this region, but I was pondering earlier how much I dislike the newly proposed "North Cotswolds" and "South Cotswolds" arrangement too. The South Cotswolds arrangement is acceptable but the name is not. Cirencester & Malmesbury would be better especially since the Cotswolds have never included Wiltshire. North Cotswolds needs to be redrawn to include Quedgeley instead of Longlevens and Elmbridge and should be renamed Mid Gloucestershire. I agree the Cotswolds names are terrible, especially as both include areas not in the Cotswold Hills. I came up with Mid and East Gloucs, and Cirencester and N Wilts. Also agree Wealden is bad (my suggestion uses the 2 main towns). Similarly Wells and Mendip Hills is vague so gone for Mid Somerset |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Nov 16, 2022 8:44:12 GMT
I'm doing a submission on names. My sensible idea is to rename Windsor to Windsor and Engelfield Green. I keep being drawn to Windsor Great Park (or Windsor Great Park and Langley). Would that be really horrible? What's wrong with short names? I think they should be as short as possible. I agree on keeping reasonably short but if you are crossing a county boundary think both parts should be referenced. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 16, 2022 9:10:49 GMT
The South Cotswolds arrangement is acceptable but the name is not. Cirencester & Malmesbury would be better especially since the Cotswolds have never included Wiltshire. North Cotswolds needs to be redrawn to include Quedgeley instead of Longlevens and Elmbridge and should be renamed Mid Gloucestershire. I agree the Cotswolds names are terrible, especially as both include areas not in the Cotswold Hills. I came up with Mid and East Gloucs, and Cirencester and N Wilts. Also agree Wealden is bad (my suggestion uses the 2 main towns). Similarly Wells and Mendip Hills is vague so gone for Mid Somerset "Mid Somerset" is pretty vague too, and doesn't represent the northern extension to the constituency, which is the main change. Though it's better than "Mid Berkshire", in this region, which could equally refer to at least two other proposed constituencies. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 16, 2022 11:43:59 GMT
Longlevens is in *North Cotswolds*? That's even more of a monstrosity than Churchdown being there.
|
|
Say round Edenbridge/ Sevenoaks perhaps?
