|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 23, 2018 9:54:28 GMT
There you go, hamming it up again....  Indeed, when the obvious solution would've been a merger creating the Borough of Fulhammersmith. A lot of these contrived placenames were suggested for new councils in the 1960s and 1970s (eg 'Wyvern' for the merged counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, from the rivers Wye and Severn). Were there any adopted? The London borough names seem to have stuck even though some were questionable (Brent, Haringey, Havering, Redbridge and Waltham Forest especially). |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 23, 2018 10:11:34 GMT
Great find by Adrian. It's interesting that no one seems to have been disputing the actual boundary, but the name was apparently all-important. Actually, it will have been an uphill fight to get 'Batley' in the name because, although the proposed constituency included (among other places) the parish of Batley, the actual town of Batley itself was in the part of the parish that lay within the Parliamentary Borough of Dewsbury. This meant that although Batley town was part of the county division in a formal sense, the great majority of qualifying electors living there would also have qualified for the borough of Dewsbury and would have voted accordingly (since for voters with a dual qualification in respect of the same holding, the borough took priority). This is why it was customary for the census to give the population of county divisions net of any boroughs within or overlapping their territory - in practice, the great majority of voters living in a Parliamentary borough would have voted in that borough, not in the county division of which they were theoretically also part. The 1885 review was pretty consistent in not naming county divisions after places that lay within boroughs that overlapped the division (although Chesterton in Cambs was a rare exception). So they would naturally have sought to name it after a place that was within the division but not within any overlapping borough. This approach leaves Morley as the obvious candidate. I admit I've strayed a little off the topic of the 2018 review, but its predecessor of 1885 is definitely my favourite review and if I get time I'll start a thread about it to explain why. There's a copy on abe books just at the moment for £293 plus £10 postage (includes Irish and Scottish reviews). How the copy got to Leipzig is anyone's guess..... (the only other full copy seems to be about £1300!!!).
David can possibly advise on how reasonable this is.
EDIT: of course you may already have it, which is why it is your favourite but someone else on here might fancy it for christmas.....  I was looking at my copy of British Parliamentary Constituencies: Statistical Compendium by Ivor Crewe & Anthony Fox the other day (to check the composition of the Chelmsford constituency ) and happened to notice that it had previously belonged to the University of Northern Michigan. It's hard to believe there would have been much demand for it there (and indeed the issue slip suggested it had only been issued once) |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 23, 2018 10:18:35 GMT
There's a copy on abe books just at the moment for £293 plus £10 postage (includes Irish and Scottish reviews). How the copy got to Leipzig is anyone's guess..... (the only other full copy seems to be about £1300!!!).
David can possibly advise on how reasonable this is.
EDIT: of course you may already have it, which is why it is your favourite but someone else on here might fancy it for christmas..... I was looking at my copy of British Parliamentary Constituencies: Statistical Compendium by Ivor Crewe & Anthony Fox the other day (to check the composition of the Chelmsford constituency ) and happened to notice that it had previously belonged to the University of Northern Michigan. It's hard to believe there would have been much demand for it there (and indeed the issue slip suggested it had only been issued once) American universities always did (and to a certain extent still do) buy absolutely everything which is good news for everybody else when they have been having clear outs. I've bought a lot of drama reference books from the States very cheap and they are often ex-university.
I can only imagine that the former DDR used to do the same to show the decadence of the west as brought about by the silly habit of actually allowing people to vote.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,842 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 23, 2018 10:30:39 GMT
I was looking at my copy of British Parliamentary Constituencies: Statistical Compendium by Ivor Crewe & Anthony Fox the other day (to check the composition of the Chelmsford constituency ) and happened to notice that it had previously belonged to the University of Northern Michigan. It's hard to believe there would have been much demand for it there (and indeed the issue slip suggested it had only been issued once) American universities always did (and to a certain extent still do) buy absolutely everything which is good news for everybody else when they have been having clear outs. I've bought a lot of drama reference books from the States very cheap and they are often ex-university.
I think that's where my copy of the Redcliffe-Maud report came from (an American university). I can't check at the moment, I'm not on the same continent as it. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 23, 2018 19:35:57 GMT
Indeed, when the obvious solution would've been a merger creating the Borough of Fulhammersmith. A lot of these contrived placenames were suggested for new councils in the 1960s and 1970s (eg 'Wyvern' for the merged counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, from the rivers Wye and Severn). Were there any adopted? Delyn springs to mind, though it was wisely abolished in 1996. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 23, 2018 19:57:06 GMT
There you go, hamming it up again.... Indeed, when the obvious solution would've been a merger creating the Borough of Fulhammersmith. That's a real Hamful. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 23, 2018 20:28:16 GMT
I don't see why It couldn't have been the first three letters of Hammersmith and the last three of Fulham Given the multiple derivations of 'ham' in place names, having a name Hamham would have been quite possible. There is a Wick Wick just outside of Bristol. If Hammersmith & Fulham ever merges with Richmond, you could have HamHamHam, or maybe Cubed Ham? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 23, 2018 20:55:14 GMT
Given the multiple derivations of 'ham' in place names, having a name Hamham would have been quite possible. There is a Wick Wick just outside of Bristol. If Hammersmith & Fulham ever merges with Richmond, you could have HamHamHam, or maybe Cubed Ham? Bredon Hill means "Hill Hill Hill" |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Nov 23, 2018 21:34:19 GMT
If Hammersmith & Fulham ever merges with Richmond, you could have HamHamHam, or maybe Cubed Ham? Bredon Hill means "Hill Hill Hill" When you start to explore place name derivation, you find half the places in Britain have names that just meant hill hill. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 24, 2018 0:33:28 GMT
A lot of these contrived placenames were suggested for new councils in the 1960s and 1970s (eg 'Wyvern' for the merged counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, from the rivers Wye and Severn). Were there any adopted? Delyn springs to mind, though it was wisely abolished in 1996. I'm telling you, the local government reorganisation that happened in Wales during the mid-1990s should never have taken place!  Though, I suppose "The Borough of Flint" or something similar would've probably been a tad more appropriate as a district name... |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 24, 2018 9:33:36 GMT
Delyn springs to mind, though it was wisely abolished in 1996. I'm telling you, the local government reorganisation that happened in Wales during the mid-1990s should never have taken place! Though, I suppose "The Borough of Flint" or something similar would've probably been a tad more appropriate as a district name... I don't think what Wales ended up with in terms of principal authorities in the mid-1990s was satisfactory everywhere, but Denbigh shire and Flint shire are local council names I can get behind. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 26, 2018 9:47:34 GMT
I haven't been paying much attention to this subject recently. When are the new boundaries going to be voted on by parliament? Not before December 12th 2018 (the date suggested for the meaningful vote on the Brexit deal) and if that goes as pear shaped as the experts are suggesting it will, the potential is there for it never making it to the floor of the Commons at all! |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 26, 2018 10:50:43 GMT
Though since demographic changes have slowed somewhat in recent years, that might not be as distorting as it once would have been. One of the many bad features of recent legislation has been more frequent boundary reviews, when if anything the opposite would be more appropriate.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 26, 2018 13:15:23 GMT
I haven't been paying much attention to this subject recently. When are the new boundaries going to be voted on by parliament? First in line once Brexit is sorted I'd expect. So clear diaries for summer 2027.... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 27, 2018 20:22:25 GMT
Though since demographic changes have slowed somewhat in recent years, that might not be as distorting as it once would have been. One of the many bad features of recent legislation has been more frequent boundary reviews, when if anything the opposite would be more appropriate. More frequent reviews under the current rules would be a bad idea, given how disruptive they'd be. But I'm not convinced slower demographic change will hold up if housebuilding increases, as seems moderately likely given housing's increasing salience as a political issue. Not to sound like a broken record, but I still think the solution is smaller, more frequent reviews for specific areas, rather than doing the whole country at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 27, 2018 20:35:32 GMT
Though since demographic changes have slowed somewhat in recent years, that might not be as distorting as it once would have been. One of the many bad features of recent legislation has been more frequent boundary reviews, when if anything the opposite would be more appropriate. More frequent reviews under the current rules would be a bad idea, given how disruptive they'd be. But I'm not convinced slower demographic change will hold up if housebuilding increases, as seems moderately likely given housing's increasing salience as a political issue. Not to sound like a broken record, but I still think the solution is smaller, more frequent reviews for specific areas, rather than doing the whole country at the same time. I haven't picked up this idea from you before, so the record can't have been played that often. I think this is an excellent idea, and links to other suggestions made here, that the Boundary Commission should be merged with the local boundary commissions, so there is a permanent and experienced staff. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Nov 27, 2018 20:50:15 GMT
The most important thing is that we pick a set of rules and stick with them. Obviously you need to change the 1st time, but after that you need cross-party consensus on what the rules will be. Otherwise, you get needless change which ends up impeding the ability of the review to pass and actually come into effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 29, 2018 21:09:03 GMT
More frequent reviews under the current rules would be a bad idea, given how disruptive they'd be. But I'm not convinced slower demographic change will hold up if housebuilding increases, as seems moderately likely given housing's increasing salience as a political issue. Not to sound like a broken record, but I still think the solution is smaller, more frequent reviews for specific areas, rather than doing the whole country at the same time. I haven't picked up this idea from you before, so the record can't have been played that often. I think this is an excellent idea, and links to other suggestions made here, that the Boundary Commission should be merged with the local boundary commissions, so there is a permanent and experienced staff. My big idea was to steal the Australian practice of checking the entitlement to seats every year and whenever a county (state) was entitled to an extra seat and another county was entitled to one fewer, just doing a redistribution there. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 30, 2018 18:46:22 GMT
I haven't picked up this idea from you before, so the record can't have been played that often. I think this is an excellent idea, and links to other suggestions made here, that the Boundary Commission should be merged with the local boundary commissions, so there is a permanent and experienced staff. My big idea was to steal the Australian practice of checking the entitlement to seats every year and whenever a county (state) was entitled to an extra seat and another county was entitled to one fewer, just doing a redistribution there. You can have the best of both worlds like the Germans do. Comprehensive reviews every 12 years or so, but mini-redistributions between elections when and where they've become necessary. Most of the current Bundestag constituencies date from the 2013 election, but for 2017 Bavaria gained one extra seat at the expense of Thuringia due to population shifts, so there was a boundary review in just those two states. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Nov 30, 2018 19:59:22 GMT
My big idea was to steal the Australian practice of checking the entitlement to seats every year and whenever a county (state) was entitled to an extra seat and another county was entitled to one fewer, just doing a redistribution there. You can have the best of both worlds like the Germans do. Comprehensive reviews every 12 years or so, but mini-redistributions between elections when and where they've become necessary. Most of the current Bundestag constituencies date from the 2013 election, but for 2017 Bavaria gained one extra seat at the expense of Thuringia due to population shifts, so there was a boundary review in just those two states. Actually, no, the Germans don't have comprehensive reviews every 12 years. Reviews take place after every election, but they have far more flexibility. The exact rules are that when a constituency deviates by more than 25% from the average, they must review the constituencies in that region with a 15% deviation permitted. Unless that happens, it's left alone. The last major review was in 2002. That was necessary because they cut the number of constituencies from 328 to 299 and reduced the permitted deviation (from 25 at a review/33 outside a review to the current 15/25.) Since then there's only been tinkering 2005: Thuringia -1, Bavaria +1 2009: Saxony-Anhalt -1, Saxony -1, Lower Saxony +1, Baden-Württemberg +1 2013: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern -1, Hesse +1 2017: Thuringia -1, Bavaria +1 The result is that most constituencies date from at least 2002. If you adopted a similar system for the UK, you would have to work with a tighter deviation making each review effectively a general review rather than a limited one. |
|
