|
|
Post by owainsutton on Aug 4, 2023 18:46:41 GMT
Is there a long historical and etymological background to "division" in this context, or is it something that first came into use in the 20th or 19th centuries? (Genuine question!)
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 4, 2023 19:03:33 GMT
It's the ex-county unitaries that maintain the use of divisions whilst other unitaries use wards that sometimes confuses me a bit, but then that may just be me... For the most part, but not exclusively - Buckinghamshire uses wards, for example. But isn't Buckinghamshire one of those really odd things of being a unitary district with no county council? As opposed to being a unitary county with no districts. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Aug 4, 2023 19:43:31 GMT
GWBWI
LDm +214
Grn -2
Lab -13
Con -210
Lab's positive (+33) in Reading outweighed by -36 in Dudley and small losses in the other two.
Not much either way for the Greens
Excellent night after some quiet weeks for the LibDems
Another torrid one for the Cons, down everywhere. I've been looking (not GWBWI) at the pattern of Con defences over the past two and a half years, and it's not pretty: sliding downwards steadily. Will put something up at some point soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 4, 2023 20:06:24 GMT
Is there a long historical and etymological background to "division" in this context, or is it something that first came into use in the 20th or 19th centuries? (Genuine question!) And an interesting one. I would say yes.
I suspect that it's a bit like the beer/ale discussion.
A county/shire was divided (verb) into hundreds, so a hundred was a division (noun). This was different to what happened sur le continent, where the building blocks, such as they were corresponded to the spheres of influence of particular nobles, which would cover all sorts of areas.
See Maddicott's "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327".
|
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Aug 4, 2023 22:00:45 GMT
Dudley Lib Dem 1321 Labour 771 Con 353 Green 79 TUSC 5 TUSC bar chart for next time could be tricky ... Upside down - Chic featuring Nile Rodgers at Vienne 2013 Its worth listing to the other pretty spectaclular renditions, We are Family at 7:55 for instance is just outstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 4, 2023 22:47:03 GMT
I do like the pic of Castle Rising as an indication of the sort of places now falling to the Lib Dem onslought. It's since we started using trebuchets. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 4, 2023 23:11:07 GMT
Is there a long historical and etymological background to "division" in this context, or is it something that first came into use in the 20th or 19th centuries? (Genuine question!) And an interesting one. I would say yes.
I suspect that it's a bit like the beer/ale discussion.
A county/shire was divided (verb) into hundreds, so a hundred was a division (noun). This was different to what happened sur le continent, where the building blocks, such as they were corresponded to the spheres of influence of particular nobles, which would cover all sorts of areas.
See Maddicott's "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327".
Blast you, Finso, this is yet another area where scholarship has moved on from my undergraduate days and I'd like to update my knowledge with Maddicott, but when will I find the time? The vast expanses of my ignorance grow ever wider. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 5, 2023 1:16:53 GMT
Is there a long historical and etymological background to "division" in this context, or is it something that first came into use in the 20th or 19th centuries? (Genuine question!) And an interesting one. I would say yes.
I suspect that it's a bit like the beer/ale discussion.
A county/shire was divided (verb) into hundreds, so a hundred was a division (noun). This was different to what happened sur le continent, where the building blocks, such as they were corresponded to the spheres of influence of particular nobles, which would cover all sorts of areas.
See Maddicott's "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327".
But in terms of Parliamentary constituencies, the term would not have been used presumably before 1832 when some counties were divided (with the same happening to Parliamentary boroughs in 1885)? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 5, 2023 6:55:48 GMT
I do like the pic of Castle Rising as an indication of the sort of places now falling to the Lib Dem onslought. It's since we started using trebuchets. At last somebody who understands the original joke, and improves on it.Up to now the responses have been about that word onslought which people seemed to think I meant literally and applied to a minor by-election success. Had that been the case they could be understandably scornful. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Aug 5, 2023 8:24:30 GMT
you spelt it wrong as well. it's "onslaught"
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 5, 2023 8:58:37 GMT
Is there a long historical and etymological background to "division" in this context, or is it something that first came into use in the 20th or 19th centuries? (Genuine question!) From the very earliest version of the Reform Bill (Bill 247 in the 1830-31 session) the wording is that the larger Counties are "to be divided in manner herinafter particularly directed" and that Knights of the Shire shall serve "for the respective divisions of the said Counties". Accordingly the Divisions of Counties Act (1832 Cap. LXIV) was passed as part of the Reform Act and refers consistently to divisions. The term 'Constituencies' as a way of referring collectively to Counties, divisions of Counties, Boroughs, Burghs, and Universities returning Members to Parliament, first appeared in the 1884-85 redistribution. This was also the process which introduced the concept that Parliamentary boroughs could also have divisions. The term 'ward' as a division of a Borough or City is of ancient usage. The City of London's wards are pre-Norman. When county councils were established by the Local Government Act 1888, the Act directed that each county be divided into electoral divisions and this terminology has continued to be used for county level authorities. One exception was the GLC - the London Government Act 1963 referred to 'electoral areas'. Not until the local government reforms of the 1970s was the term 'ward' used for local elections in the more rural areas. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Aug 5, 2023 9:57:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 5, 2023 10:00:57 GMT
And an interesting one. I would say yes.
I suspect that it's a bit like the beer/ale discussion.
A county/shire was divided (verb) into hundreds, so a hundred was a division (noun). This was different to what happened sur le continent, where the building blocks, such as they were corresponded to the spheres of influence of particular nobles, which would cover all sorts of areas.
See Maddicott's "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327".
Blast you, Finso, this is yet another area where scholarship has moved on from my undergraduate days and I'd like to update my knowledge with Maddicott, but when will I find the time? The vast expanses of my ignorance grow ever wider. That is a sure sign of maturity. The realisation of how little we know. |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
Member is Online
|
Post by cogload on Aug 5, 2023 11:02:30 GMT
Let's go back to hundreds and wapentakes. Makes it easier..
South of the Trent/Mersey = hundred
North - wapentake.
Sorted. 👍
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,908
|
Post by YL on Aug 5, 2023 11:23:04 GMT
For the most part, but not exclusively - Buckinghamshire uses wards, for example. But isn't Buckinghamshire one of those really odd things of being a unitary district with no county council? As opposed to being a unitary county with no districts. Yes. Buckinghamshire Council is legally a district council, with the Structural Changes Order abolishing the former County Council and stating that the requirement that a county should have a county council does not apply to Buckinghamshire. The other "whole county" unitaries were set up in a different way, where the former County Council became the new unitary council; here's the North Yorkshire order, which does not contain the statement about the requirement that a county has a council does not apply to North Yorkshire. This is why those unitaries have divisions and Buckinghamshire has wards, although it does not exactly answer the question because it does not explain why they were set up differently. It's mildly irritating because it means that Ordnance Survey data treats the divisions of those unitaries for which they are called that separately from wards. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 5, 2023 11:33:56 GMT
Let's go back to hundreds and wapentakes. Makes it easier.. South of the Trent/Mersey = hundred North - wapentake. Sorted. 👍 It was the areas subject to Danelaw which generally had Wapentakes, so Lancashire has Hundreds. Also note that in Kent, the Hundreds are grouped into five Lathes. And some counties have their own names: Cumberland: Wards Durham: Wards Northumberland: Wards Sussex: Rapes Westmorland: Wards |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 5, 2023 12:22:01 GMT
But isn't Buckinghamshire one of those really odd things of being a unitary district with no county council? As opposed to being a unitary county with no districts. Yes. Buckinghamshire Council is legally a district council, with the Structural Changes Order abolishing the former County Council and stating that the requirement that a county should have a county council does not apply to Buckinghamshire. Isn't that the one that also resulted in the new council having hundreds of councillors as they just carried forward the existing wards from the previous districts? |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,012
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 5, 2023 12:22:58 GMT
Let's go back to hundreds and wapentakes. Makes it easier.. South of the Trent/Mersey = hundred North - wapentake. Sorted. 👍 It was the areas subject to Danelaw which generally had Wapentakes, so Lancashire has Hundreds. Also note that in Kent, the Hundreds are grouped into five Lathes. And some counties have their own names: Cumberland: Wards Durham: Wards Northumberland: Wards Sussex: Rapes Westmorland: Wards Lancashire was subject to Danelaw but wasn't an independent county until 12th century so that doesn't track as the reason (more likely because it's a newer county and the standard then was to call the subdivisions Hundreds). In Sussex, Hundreds were subdivisions of the Rapes. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 5, 2023 18:14:28 GMT
you spelt it wrong as well. it's "onslaught" Of course it is, as in Slaughter (Upper and Lower). That correction I acknowledge and am duly abased - I blame it on the state of my health. which borders on total collapse. I have not been myself for several days and my usual self would not make such an elementary spelling error. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 5, 2023 23:50:32 GMT
you spelt it wrong as well. it's "onslaught" Of course it is, as in Slaughter (Upper and Lower). That correction I acknowledge and am duly abased - I blame it on the state of my health. which borders on total collapse. I have not been myself for several days and my usual self would not make such an elementary spelling error. Oh… here was I thinking that the difference in spelling between “onslaught” and “onslought” was the whole point of the joke. |
|
