Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 23:58:32 GMT
It's possible that that post might have content which contradicts other comments I have made, maybe even in this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 18, 2017 0:01:54 GMT
I'm not claiming to have any knowledge of the history of art!! I am merely pointing out that this is utterly, totally, wholly and completely irrelevant when it comes to the naming of parliamentary constituencies. It isn't, because of your absurd contention that the Cornwall St. Ives was as obscure and insignificant as that in Cambridgeshire. It has an historic association as the name of that constituency and is world famous in art terms. It is not obscure. Most Americans of my acquaintance know of it and it's significance and I don't think you had any inkling of it. There are many interesting towns and Helston is known for the festivities around the Furry Dance, Newlyn has the fishing port/gallery/school of art, Penzance the rail terminus/Artists Club. Don't spoil an old tradition by blundering in with damn fool suggestions to cure a non-existent problem.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,535
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2017 0:07:05 GMT
I don't know if I find myself closer to Foggy or Carlton. Here goes. I have always believed that constituency names, specifically, should reflect and represent the area to which they are attached. No hard and fast rule, no absolute rule, but a guideline from which to work. So, yes, I am the kind of person who much prefers names to have two, three or four elements rather than just one. I would much prefer to have "A & B" than just "A". I would much prefer to have "A, B and W north" than just "A". I approve of names in Scotland and Wales which use minority languages where it is sensible to do so, and as it stands, I think the policy on these matters in particular (insofar as there is a policy) is used very well. To give an example from the current boundary review, if things go the way the local Tories desire, I would suggest "Pendle and Rural Burnley" as a constituency name to ensure that all elements of the new seat go represented. Unlike Foggy, I am not a traditional county man. I think that I may have mentioned this quite specifically at the public meeting of the Zombie Review, actually. Where it makes sense, or seems too long in the tooth to change, "one town to represent them all" is perhaps the best way to go. That said, I like "Hereford and South Herefordshire", I like "York Outer" now that I've got used to it, and I just hope that somebody, please, at the BCE replaces "North Lancashire" with "Valleys of Ribble and Lune". Well, I'd say you're either closer to him or to neither of us! I am coming round to the idea that some new constituency names (in England and Wales since a few already do in Scotland) may need to mention more than two elements, but mentioning four towns sounds a tad excessive. Besides, I can't help feeling in such cases that a lack of local knowledge is preventing me from finding a single-word alternative that would at least roughly encompass the area concerned. I think that "Pendle and Rural Burnley" sounds awful, but it's your neck of the woods, so please go ahead and see how that suggestion goes down there. I too am getting used to York Outer and would accept your alternative to 'North Lancashire' if the proposed boundaries there remain as they are. I can't see what is so attractive about the tautological 'Hereford & South Herefordshire', mind. Clearly we are not going to agree on every aspect of this topic, but thank you for detailing your thoughts on the matter in a non-antagonistic way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 0:09:45 GMT
If memory serves, Foggy, a member of this Forum long since removed almost got to the point of threatening physical violence against me on this topic, I try to beat a more conciliatory path.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,535
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2017 0:18:29 GMT
I'm not claiming to have any knowledge of the history of art!! I am merely pointing out that this is utterly, totally, wholly and completely irrelevant when it comes to the naming of parliamentary constituencies. It isn't, because of your absurd contention that the Cornwall St. Ives was as obscure and insignificant as that in Cambridgeshire. It has an historic association as the name of that constituency and is world famous in art terms. It is not obscure. Most Americans of my acquaintance know of it and it's significance and I don't think you had any inkling of it. There are many interesting towns and Helston is known for the festivities around the Furry Dance, Newlyn has the fishing port/gallery/school of art, Penzance the rail terminus/Artists Club. Don't spoil an old tradition by blundering in with damn fool suggestions to cure a non-existent problem. We should absolutely not be naming our parliamentary constituencies for the benefit of Americans, especially when they make no effort with their own electoral districts. This is one old tradition that does need to be spoilt, I feel. In some cases there was justification for keeping seat names that have been in existence for over 700 years, but that is becoming increasingly difficult with the new stricter rules. You're allowed to be obsessed with paintings and high culture, but I fail to understand why it should cloud your judgement regarding a completely unrelated interest of yours. There are much more famous painters from Covent Garden, East Bergholt and Sudbury plus better known galleries in Whitechapel, Margate, Whitworth and Bretton Hall – yet none of those places currently has a constituency named after them. One area of expertise does not inform the other.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 18, 2017 0:18:34 GMT
I don't know if I find myself closer to Foggy or Carlton. Here goes. As the Forum knows as a rule, my submissions to boundary commissions of both a local and parliamentary bent tend to focus on names rather than boundaries per se. I can give a tweak here and there and have, without much good, looked at boundaries as a project to eat into a lazy hour or five, but my main focus has always been on the names of seats and not the area within boundaries. I have always believed that constituency names, specifically, should reflect and represent the area to which they are attached. No hard and fast rule, no absolute rule, but a guideline from which to work. So, yes, I am the kind of person who much prefers names to have two, three or four elements rather than just one. I would much prefer to have "A & B" than just "A". I would much prefer to have "A, B and W north" than just "A". I approve of names in Scotland and Wales which use minority languages where it is sensible to do so, and as it stands, I think the policy on these matters in particular (insofar as there is a policy) is used very well. "St Ives" as a name has represented, give or take a few swift ticks of the administrator's pencil, the same area of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for more years than I dare to check. It is a time capsule of a name, from when the rules on such things were very different to what they are now. Changing it for the sake of changing it probably isn't sensible, and I accept that this is a change from my usual view that, in the context of regionally wide reviews, anything goes. In this case, by and large, it should stay. But I don't use this one example to mean that ALL such examples are identical. There are long standing constituency names which I would consider changing. Each seat has its own areas of focus, its own circles of influence. To give an example from the current boundary review, if things go the way the local Tories desire, I would suggest "Pendle and Rural Burnley" as a constituency name to ensure that all elements of the new seat go represented. Unlike Foggy, I am not a traditional county man. I think that I may have mentioned this quite specifically at the public meeting of the Zombie Review, actually. Where it makes sense, or seems too long in the tooth to change, "one town to represent them all" is perhaps the best way to go. That said, I like "Hereford and South Herefordshire", I like "York Outer" now that I've got used to it, and I just hope that somebody, please, at the BCE replaces "North Lancashire" with "Valleys of Ribble and Lune". Nice piece Dok and given it a like for the sentiments on St. Ives alone. In all other respects I deeply respect your views and disagree nearly completely. I like Real names Historic names Continuing names Short names Terse names Known names I loath Long names New names New Local Authority invented cobblers names Complicated names So in say Kent I would have Dartford Gravesend Sevenoaks Tonbridge Tunbridge Wells Ashford Folkestone Dover Canterbury Maidstone Ramsgate Margate Faversham Sittingbourne Gillingham Rochester Chatham Simple as that. Nothing extra. The Scottish seats are absolute abominations. My seat should be call Ross and the next on Inverness. I will make an exception for the ancient seats of Orkney&Shetland and Caithess&Sutherland because they are two groups of islands miles apart and two complete counties. Fair enough.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,535
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2017 0:20:17 GMT
If memory serves, Foggy, a member of this Forum long since removed almost got to the point of threatening physical violence against me on this topic, I try to beat a more conciliatory path. Whilst this can clearly be a subject that stirs emotions, there is never any need to go that far. I'm not familiar with that incident, but it sounds as if it was quite right that the member in question be removed.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 18, 2017 0:27:26 GMT
If memory serves, Foggy, a member of this Forum long since removed almost got to the point of threatening physical violence against me on this topic, I try to beat a more conciliatory path. Whilst this can clearly be a subject that stirs emotions, there is never any need to go that far. I'm not familiar with that incident, but it sounds as if it was quite right that the member in question be removed. I am not emotional, merely robust in argument. I liked Glasgow with proper names and not vapid series of compass points. I like plain Motherwell and Ayr, and a Greenock and a Paisley. One name only unless a second is essential.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 18, 2017 0:29:44 GMT
Whilst this can clearly be a subject that stirs emotions, there is never any need to go that far. I'm not familiar with that incident, but it sounds as if it was quite right that the member in question be removed. I am not emotional, merely robust in argument. I liked Glasgow with proper names and not vapid series of compass points. I like plain Motherwell and Ayr, and a Greenock and a Paisley. One name only unless a second is essential. Glasgow St Rollox - now there was a constituency name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 0:30:06 GMT
I don't know if I find myself closer to Foggy or Carlton. Here goes. As the Forum knows as a rule, my submissions to boundary commissions of both a local and parliamentary bent tend to focus on names rather than boundaries per se. I can give a tweak here and there and have, without much good, looked at boundaries as a project to eat into a lazy hour or five, but my main focus has always been on the names of seats and not the area within boundaries. I have always believed that constituency names, specifically, should reflect and represent the area to which they are attached. No hard and fast rule, no absolute rule, but a guideline from which to work. So, yes, I am the kind of person who much prefers names to have two, three or four elements rather than just one. I would much prefer to have "A & B" than just "A". I would much prefer to have "A, B and W north" than just "A". I approve of names in Scotland and Wales which use minority languages where it is sensible to do so, and as it stands, I think the policy on these matters in particular (insofar as there is a policy) is used very well. "St Ives" as a name has represented, give or take a few swift ticks of the administrator's pencil, the same area of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for more years than I dare to check. It is a time capsule of a name, from when the rules on such things were very different to what they are now. Changing it for the sake of changing it probably isn't sensible, and I accept that this is a change from my usual view that, in the context of regionally wide reviews, anything goes. In this case, by and large, it should stay. But I don't use this one example to mean that ALL such examples are identical. There are long standing constituency names which I would consider changing. Each seat has its own areas of focus, its own circles of influence. To give an example from the current boundary review, if things go the way the local Tories desire, I would suggest "Pendle and Rural Burnley" as a constituency name to ensure that all elements of the new seat go represented. Unlike Foggy, I am not a traditional county man. I think that I may have mentioned this quite specifically at the public meeting of the Zombie Review, actually. Where it makes sense, or seems too long in the tooth to change, "one town to represent them all" is perhaps the best way to go. That said, I like "Hereford and South Herefordshire", I like "York Outer" now that I've got used to it, and I just hope that somebody, please, at the BCE replaces "North Lancashire" with "Valleys of Ribble and Lune". Nice piece Dok and given it a like for the sentiments on St. Ives alone. In all other respects I deeply respect your views and disagree nearly completely. I like Real names Historic names Continuing names Short names Terse names Known names I loath Long names New names New Local Authority invented cobblers names Complicated names So in say Kent I would have Dartford Gravesend Sevenoaks Tonbridge Tunbridge Wells Ashford Folkestone Dover Canterbury Maidstone Ramsgate Margate Faversham Sittingbourne Gillingham Rochester Chatham Simple as that. Nothing extra. The Scottish seats are absolute abominations. My seat should be call Ross and the next on Inverness. I will make an exception for the ancient seats of Orkney&Shetland and Caithess&Sutherland because they are two groups of islands miles apart and two complete counties. Fair enough. I think my views are becoming less stringent as I age, or maybe they coalesce. I agree with you about short/terse names though only in specific cases. So "Wigan", "Leigh", "Fylde", "Tooting" - one word, bosh, there we go. I don't agree with you about Scotland, and indeed fully respect the Scottish Commission's decision to fit as many names as possible into seat names. In the context of wide and significant reviews, such as the Sixth Periodic which we're going through now, I find that it's important to get the names right. Voters *do* notice when their constituency name doesn't match up with what they think is the constituency they live in. Sometimes hard and fast rules simply don't work, and in this instance, "one word fits all" is unworkable.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,535
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2017 0:35:53 GMT
Whilst this can clearly be a subject that stirs emotions, there is never any need to go that far. I'm not familiar with that incident, but it sounds as if it was quite right that the member in question be removed. I am not emotional, merely robust in argument. I liked Glasgow with proper names and not vapid series of compass points. I like plain Motherwell and Ayr, and a Greenock and a Paisley. One name only unless a second is essential. I wasn't necessarily just referring to you when I said this could be an emotive topic, though I do detect emotion in your posts in the sense that there is a presence of sentiment, if not anger. I conceded a couple of pages back that I have yet to come up with a uniform position regarding urban seats. Glasgow still has names of suburbs for its Holyrood constituencies and used compass points for its Westminster seats, which appears to me to be a fair compromise. Greenock would be a more suitable name than 'Inverclyde'. From your response to doktorb I would join you in loathing "new Local Authority invented cobblers names" and think your example list for Kent is perfectly sensible and acceptable, although I am not nearly as adverse to adding a second place name as you are. Six of the names you listed are identical to those in my actual proposals.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 18, 2017 0:40:14 GMT
I am not emotional, merely robust in argument. I liked Glasgow with proper names and not vapid series of compass points. I like plain Motherwell and Ayr, and a Greenock and a Paisley. One name only unless a second is essential. Glasgow St Rollox - now there was a constituency name. Brewery AND railway works AND politics................. Twas bliss in that constituency to be alive.................
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 18, 2017 0:47:00 GMT
Nice piece Dok and given it a like for the sentiments on St. Ives alone. In all other respects I deeply respect your views and disagree nearly completely. I like Real names Historic names Continuing names Short names Terse names Known names I loath Long names New names New Local Authority invented cobblers names Complicated names So in say Kent I would have Dartford Gravesend Sevenoaks Tonbridge Tunbridge Wells Ashford Folkestone Dover Canterbury Maidstone Ramsgate Margate Faversham Sittingbourne Gillingham Rochester Chatham Simple as that. Nothing extra. The Scottish seats are absolute abominations. My seat should be call Ross and the next on Inverness. I will make an exception for the ancient seats of Orkney&Shetland and Caithess&Sutherland because they are two groups of islands miles apart and two complete counties. Fair enough. I think my views are becoming less stringent as I age, or maybe they coalesce. I agree with you about short/terse names though only in specific cases. So "Wigan", "Leigh", "Fylde", "Tooting" - one word, bosh, there we go. I don't agree with you about Scotland, and indeed fully respect the Scottish Commission's decision to fit as many names as possible into seat names. In the context of wide and significant reviews, such as the Sixth Periodic which we're going through now, I find that it's important to get the names right. Voters *do* notice when their constituency name doesn't match up with what they think is the constituency they live in. Sometimes hard and fast rules simply don't work, and in this instance, "one word fits all" is unworkable. They really don't give a fuck Dok. They just want a vote and a member. It is odd obsessives and political anoraks who write in with those submissions. No one wants a Kirkintilloch bollocks name, nor an Inverness bollocks name. Each one containing obsessive length and pure nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 18, 2017 0:55:08 GMT
Glasgow St Rollox - now there was a constituency name. Brewery AND railway works AND politics................. Twas bliss in that constituency to be alive................. had some interesting MPs (James Stewart the Labour hairdresser) and Gideon Murray (later Lord Elibank) whose memoirs were called "A Man's Life" , and some interesting candidates including the only woman to stand for the National Party of Scotland before it merged with the Scottish party, (and I think the first woman nationalist candidate) and a Conservative woman candidate who was only the second or third in Scotland. (IIRC). Oh, and Ferdinand Faithful Begg who put the a successful bill for women's suffrage through the Commons thirty years or so before women actually got the vote. (He was Emily Faithful's nephew, i think). He was a Tory as well btw.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,343
|
Post by YL on Mar 18, 2017 8:47:21 GMT
To give an example from the current boundary review, if things go the way the local Tories desire, I would suggest "Pendle and Rural Burnley" as a constituency name to ensure that all elements of the new seat go represented. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. "Rural Burnley" is an oxymoron. I can't be bothered to look up what the Tories have actually proposed there right now, but there must be a better name than that. If I'm thinking about what I dislike in constituency names: - Names based on districts with obscure names. Not moving very far from Pendle and Burnley, we have "Hyndburn". "Hyndburn Stanley. Who are they?" "Exactly." (Add Scouse accent.) I don't even know how to pronounce it. - Inaccurate compass points. "East Devon", "East Yorkshire", "North East Derbyshire". Just looking at a map should show what's wrong with all of these. - Names with two compass points, like the thankfully abolished "Knowsley North & Sefton East" or the unfortunately still with us "South Basildon & East Thurrock". - "Mid". Code for "We can't be bothered to think of a better name for this leftover bit which is vaguely in the middle". "Mid Derbyshire" is a terrible name for a terrible constituency. I said in another thread that I try to keep to four words, with the caveat that compound place names (such as "St Ives"!) count as a single word. I'm tempted to modify this to three words, but to exclude "the", "of", "and" and their Welsh and Gaelic equivalents. That would allow "South Holland & the Deepings" and "Cities of London & Westminster" but would disallow the double compass point names and a couple of the overlong Scottish names some people complain about. As for St Ives, if it needs to change then I'd suggest "St Ives, Penzance & Scilly", which keeps the old name as a component and mentions the largest town and the Scilles without breaking the above rule. But I'm not really sold on the need for a change; like "Sheffield Attercliffe" in the Fifth Review, we're talking about a name which you probably wouldn't choose if drawing constituencies from scratch but which has been around for a long time for essentially the same constituency and isn't obviously inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 18, 2017 11:16:38 GMT
To give an example from the current boundary review, if things go the way the local Tories desire, I would suggest "Pendle and Rural Burnley" as a constituency name to ensure that all elements of the new seat go represented. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. "Rural Burnley" is an oxymoron. I can't be bothered to look up what the Tories have actually proposed there right now, but there must be a better name than that. If I'm thinking about what I dislike in constituency names: - Names based on districts with obscure names. Not moving very far from Pendle and Burnley, we have "Hyndburn". "Hyndburn Stanley. Who are they?" "Exactly." (Add Scouse accent.) I don't even know how to pronounce it. - Inaccurate compass points. "East Devon", "East Yorkshire", "North East Derbyshire". Just looking at a map should show what's wrong with all of these. - Names with two compass points, like the thankfully abolished "Knowsley North & Sefton East" or the unfortunately still with us "South Basildon & East Thurrock". - "Mid". Code for "We can't be bothered to think of a better name for this leftover bit which is vaguely in the middle". "Mid Derbyshire" is a terrible name for a terrible constituency. I said in another thread that I try to keep to four words, with the caveat that compound place names (such as "St Ives"!) count as a single word. I'm tempted to modify this to three words, but to exclude "the", "of", "and" and their Welsh and Gaelic equivalents. That would allow "South Holland & the Deepings" and "Cities of London & Westminster" but would disallow the double compass point names and a couple of the overlong Scottish names some people complain about. As for St Ives, if it needs to change then I'd suggest "St Ives, Penzance & Scilly", which keeps the old name as a component and mentions the largest town and the Scilles without breaking the above rule. But I'm not really sold on the need for a change; like "Sheffield Attercliffe" in the Fifth Review, we're talking about a name which you probably wouldn't choose if drawing constituencies from scratch but which has been around for a long time for essentially the same constituency and isn't obviously inappropriate.
I solved quite a few of these problems in my proposals:
Changed Hyndburn back to Accrington and Wyre Forest to Kidderminster & Stourport(-on-Severn) Changed East Devon to Exmouth & Sidmouth, East Yorkshire back to Bridlington, and North East Derbyshire to Dromfield & Clay Cross. Changed South Basildon & East Thurrock's successor's name to Basildon & Stanford-le-Hope. Abolished Mid Derbyshire altogether. Changed Mid Sussex to Haywards Heath & Burgess Hill by recreating the old East Grinstead constituency. Mid Worcestershire meanwhile gets a name change to Evesham. And perhaps Mid Bedfordshire can be called Flitwick from now on; Arundel is much smaller than Flitwick and has a constituency named after it (Arundel & South Downs, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 18, 2017 11:50:11 GMT
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. "Rural Burnley" is an oxymoron. I can't be bothered to look up what the Tories have actually proposed there right now, but there must be a better name than that. If I'm thinking about what I dislike in constituency names: - Names based on districts with obscure names. Not moving very far from Pendle and Burnley, we have "Hyndburn". "Hyndburn Stanley. Who are they?" "Exactly." (Add Scouse accent.) I don't even know how to pronounce it. - Inaccurate compass points. "East Devon", "East Yorkshire", "North East Derbyshire". Just looking at a map should show what's wrong with all of these. - Names with two compass points, like the thankfully abolished "Knowsley North & Sefton East" or the unfortunately still with us "South Basildon & East Thurrock". - "Mid". Code for "We can't be bothered to think of a better name for this leftover bit which is vaguely in the middle". "Mid Derbyshire" is a terrible name for a terrible constituency. I said in another thread that I try to keep to four words, with the caveat that compound place names (such as "St Ives"!) count as a single word. I'm tempted to modify this to three words, but to exclude "the", "of", "and" and their Welsh and Gaelic equivalents. That would allow "South Holland & the Deepings" and "Cities of London & Westminster" but would disallow the double compass point names and a couple of the overlong Scottish names some people complain about. As for St Ives, if it needs to change then I'd suggest "St Ives, Penzance & Scilly", which keeps the old name as a component and mentions the largest town and the Scilles without breaking the above rule. But I'm not really sold on the need for a change; like "Sheffield Attercliffe" in the Fifth Review, we're talking about a name which you probably wouldn't choose if drawing constituencies from scratch but which has been around for a long time for essentially the same constituency and isn't obviously inappropriate.
I solved quite a few of these problems in my proposals:
Changed Hyndburn back to Accrington and Wyre Forest to Kidderminster & Stourport(-on-Severn) Changed East Devon to Exmouth & Sidmouth, East Yorkshire back to Bridlington, and North East Derbyshire to Dromfield & Clay Cross. Changed South Basildon & East Thurrock's successor's name to Basildon & Stanford-le-Hope. Abolished Mid Derbyshire altogether. Changed Mid Sussex to Haywards Heath & Burgess Hill by recreating the old East Grinstead constituency. Mid Worcestershire meanwhile gets a name change to Evesham. And perhaps Mid Bedfordshire can be called Flitwick from now on; Arundel is much smaller than Flitwick and has a constituency named after it (Arundel & South Downs, anyway).
Agree much of your sentiment and approach. But prefer simplicity and brevity. So Accrington and then Kidderminster. Then I go Exmouth, Bridlington and Clay Cross. The latter wins out because of the problems there with councillors making it famous and because I should so love to see at the next election on TV 'Conservatives Gain Clay Cross' which is quite likely. Then just Haywards Heath, East Grinstead and Evesham. Arundel just Arundel and though small famous and historic. Flitwick is NOT suitable under any head and if you can't do better there leave it as Mid-Beds.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,535
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 18, 2017 15:16:40 GMT
As for St Ives, if it needs to change then I'd suggest "St Ives, Penzance & Scilly", which keeps the old name as a component and mentions the largest town and the Scilles without breaking the above rule. But I'm not really sold on the need for a change; like "Sheffield Attercliffe" in the Fifth Review, we're talking about a name which you probably wouldn't choose if drawing constituencies from scratch but which has been around for a long time for essentially the same constituency and isn't obviously inappropriate. All right, I accept your reasoning. That's certainly a stronger argument than citing the location of art galleries or boasting that the current name is more likely to impress transatlantic acquaintances. But prefer simplicity and brevity. So Accrington and then Kidderminster. Then I go Exmouth, Bridlington and Clay Cross. The latter wins out because of the problems there with councillors making it famous and because I should so love to see at the next election on TV 'Conservatives Gain Clay Cross' which is quite likely. Then just Haywards Heath, East Grinstead and Evesham. Arundel just Arundel and though small famous and historic. Flitwick is NOT suitable under any head and if you can't do better there leave it as Mid-Beds. Oh, you were doing so well until that last sentence! We are of almost the same mind on these particular seat names. Using the name of any town is surely preferable to the 'Mid' moniker. Depending on how one is drawing the constituency, it could be called 'Arlesey'? The only justification for keeping it as Mid-Beds would be that an area which consistently and comfortably returns Nadine Dorries to Parliament does not deserve a better name. Changed East Devon to Exmouth & Sidmouth Why not compromise and call it Budleigh Salterton? That would be a brilliant name for a constituency. An excellent suggestion under the 'smaller town as a compromise' category. Sadly that's probably too idiosyncratic for the Commission as it's not an historic constituency name.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 18, 2017 18:41:16 GMT
Ampthill would be a better name for the seat despite being now a smaller town than Flitwick as it is not only geographically central but was a former Urban district while the old Ampthill rural district covered the major part of the seat. Woburn would be a possible alternative name which would have more resonance beyond the area but is peripheral and small
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 18, 2017 18:42:45 GMT
Of course NE Bedfordshire should be named for Biggleswade
|
|