|
|
Post by islington on Dec 22, 2023 10:09:08 GMT
Sligo Parliamentary borough as it existed from 1832 until its disfranchisement in 1870.  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 22, 2023 10:15:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 22, 2023 10:54:26 GMT
And the 1918 boundary in the Galway city area between the constituencies of Connemara and S Galway. Note that the conventional administrative boundaries used to define most of the boundary interacted with the arc defining Galway UD to create a detached sliver of S Galway between Knocknacarra and Rahoon.  |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 22, 2023 12:53:35 GMT
That map also shows another of the "ignore geography" boundary lines. A line a fixed arbitary distance to one side of a road, slicing through all the roadside properties. I was looking at the Glossop maps yesterday trying to find the centre of the circle. At first viewing you've think it was the town hall in the market place to the south-west of the High Street/Victoria Street crossroads. But, as can be seen in the linked map, the centre is somewhere just north of the other side of the road. I couldn't find anything marked on the maps but it seems to be in the vicinity of the Norfolk Arms. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 22, 2023 13:28:38 GMT
I've been looking into the Glossop boundaries a bit more, and the circular boundary actually pre-dates Glossop's incorporation, and was a complete circle - as implied by the complete circle formed by the ward boundary on the linked map. It is the 1844 Glossop Market Act boundary, the 1865 incorporation was "the existing Glossop, plus Hatfield bounded by a line 100 yards from the centre of these roads..." Further digging finds that the centre of Glossop was defined as directly below the clock tower of the newly-built Town Hall, and marked with a survey point, almost on the northern edge of the building plot. link Later maps show the inclusion of shops in the town hall frontage, so omitting the survey point, possibly because there was not enough space on the map. It's a bit of a shame that Hatfield was included in the incorporation, we could've had an entirely circular local council boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Dec 22, 2023 13:36:07 GMT
That map also shows another of the "ignore geography" boundary lines. A line a fixed arbitary distance to one side of a road, slicing through all the roadside properties. I was looking at the Glossop maps yesterday trying to find the centre of the circle. At first viewing you've think it was the town hall in the market place to the south-west of the High Street/Victoria Street crossroads. But, as can be seen in the linked map, the centre is somewhere just north of the other side of the road. I couldn't find anything marked on the maps but it seems to be in the vicinity of the Norfolk Arms. This circular definition for Glossop appears to be based on the 1844 Glossop Market Act, which stated that the centre was the Town Hall clock. This is on the south side of Norfolk Square (just west of the Norfolk Arms) and to my eyes that circle appears to be centred very close to it. The thickness of the boundary line and general standards of the map mean there's always a little uncertainty in judging it from that regardless. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 22, 2023 13:47:38 GMT
Of course most of the the Glossop circle is still used as the boundary between the unparished area, which has the same boundaries as the old Municipal Borough, and the neighbouring parish of Charlesworth. Several ward boundaries use arcs of it as well, though Simmondley ward extends outside the circle in an area where housing has spread across it, and there are two small areas on the eastern side of the circle where buildings accessed from outside the circle are included in St John's ward.
I don't think there's much chance of it becoming a constituency boundary, though.
|
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 866
|
Post by obsie on Dec 22, 2023 15:10:32 GMT
Elsewhere in Ireland, Naas still has a circular boundary:  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Dec 22, 2023 17:06:42 GMT
That map also shows another of the "ignore geography" boundary lines. A line a fixed arbitary distance to one side of a road, slicing through all the roadside properties.I was looking at the Glossop maps yesterday trying to find the centre of the circle. At first viewing you've think it was the town hall in the market place to the south-west of the High Street/Victoria Street crossroads. But, as can be seen in the linked map, the centre is somewhere just north of the other side of the road. I couldn't find anything marked on the maps but it seems to be in the vicinity of the Norfolk Arms. Something like this seems to have ended up as part of the Greater London boundary for nearly 30 years, from the formation of the GLC in the mid-1960s until boundary revisions in the early 1990s. The area concerned was next to the Barnet By-Pass section of the A1, where a narrow but fairly lengthy strip of commercial and residential properties being partly or entirely in Greater London, despite being firmly attached to Borehamwood, which was otherwise all in Hertfordshire, and separated from the nearest part of the London built-up area not just by the A1 but half a mile or so of open countryside. The situation seems to have originated from some boundary revisions in the 1930s, following the construction of the Barnet By-Pass. This had physically separated sections of each of the three parishes in the then Barnet Rural District from the rest of the district, and the boundaries were redrawn to combine these into a new civil parish which was transferred to Barnet Urban District (mostly uninhabited and still largely in the Green Belt). The western boundary of this new parish was drawn a fixed distance (50 yards? 100 yards?) west of the A1. Thirty years later, Barnet Urban District was included in Greater London, while Elstree (formerly Barnet) Rural District stayed in Hertfordshire, and was incorporated into Hertsmere in 1974. Meanwhile, the Elstree commuter town of Borehamwood had expanded almost right up to the A1 - which, as the existing boundary was left unrevised, resulted in the existence of the aforementioned narrow strip up until the 1990s boundary revisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 22, 2023 17:21:55 GMT
Talking of Greater London, it is well known that the Metropolitan Police District was defined in 1839 as including any parish, any part of which was within 15 miles of Charing Cross.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Dec 28, 2023 17:39:21 GMT
Of course most of the the Glossop circle is still used as the boundary between the unparished area, which has the same boundaries as the old Municipal Borough, and the neighbouring parish of Charlesworth. Several ward boundaries use arcs of it as well, though Simmondley ward extends outside the circle in an area where housing has spread across it, and there are two small areas on the eastern side of the circle where buildings accessed from outside the circle are included in St John's ward. I don't think there's much chance of it becoming a constituency boundary, though.Stalybridge and Glossop? Yes it’s cross boundary and cross-region (shock horror), but that shows how ludicrous it is for much of the High Peak to be in the ‘East Midlands’ when most of its residents would have no attachment to Derby or Nottingham compared to Manchester. Buxton of course is neither here nor there and leans to Macclesfield as well as Manchester but I think people are a bit more emphatic on the ‘Buxton, Derbyshire’ there. Of course ‘Tameside and Glossop’ already exists as an NHS trust. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Dec 28, 2023 17:46:41 GMT
Of course most of the the Glossop circle is still used as the boundary between the unparished area, which has the same boundaries as the old Municipal Borough, and the neighbouring parish of Charlesworth. Several ward boundaries use arcs of it as well, though Simmondley ward extends outside the circle in an area where housing has spread across it, and there are two small areas on the eastern side of the circle where buildings accessed from outside the circle are included in St John's ward. I don't think there's much chance of it becoming a constituency boundary, though.Stalybridge and Glossop? Yes it’s cross boundary and cross-region (shock horror), but that shows how ludicrous it is for much of the High Peak to be in the ‘East Midlands’ when most of its residents would have no attachment to Derby or Nottingham compared to Manchester. Buxton of course is neither here nor there and leans to Macclesfield as well as Manchester but I think people are a bit more emphatic on the ‘Buxton, Derbyshire’ there. Of course ‘Tameside and Glossop’ already exists as an NHS trust. A lot depends on what form the next review takes, and that could be in ten, twenty, or further years. If the English Commission is again tasked with reviewing everything in one go, they're very likely to use the regions, and will be stubborn as mules against changing. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Dec 28, 2023 18:26:39 GMT
Stalybridge and Glossop? Yes it’s cross boundary and cross-region (shock horror), but that shows how ludicrous it is for much of the High Peak to be in the ‘East Midlands’ when most of its residents would have no attachment to Derby or Nottingham compared to Manchester. Buxton of course is neither here nor there and leans to Macclesfield as well as Manchester but I think people are a bit more emphatic on the ‘Buxton, Derbyshire’ there. Of course ‘Tameside and Glossop’ already exists as an NHS trust. A lot depends on what form the next review takes, and that could be in ten, twenty, or further years. If the English Commission is again tasked with reviewing everything in one go, they're very likely to use the regions, and will be stubborn as mules against changing. Which unfortunately means that (barring a chnage of course) there are likely to be terrible constituency boundaries - especially where regional boundaries do not exist on the ground (such as Cleveland/Whitby and Lincolnshire). |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Dec 28, 2023 20:40:21 GMT
A lot depends on what form the next review takes, and that could be in ten, twenty, or further years. If the English Commission is again tasked with reviewing everything in one go, they're very likely to use the regions, and will be stubborn as mules against changing. Which unfortunately means that (barring a chnage of course) there are likely to be terrible constituency boundaries - especially where regional boundaries do not exist on the ground (such as Cleveland/Whitby and Lincolnshire). It adds to the fun of the forum eh |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Dec 30, 2023 4:52:05 GMT
A lot depends on what form the next review takes, and that could be in ten, twenty, or further years. If the English Commission is again tasked with reviewing everything in one go, they're very likely to use the regions, and will be stubborn as mules against changing. Which unfortunately means that (barring a chnage of course) there are likely to be terrible constituency boundaries - especially where regional boundaries do not exist on the ground (such as Cleveland/Whitby and Lincolnshire). This actually brings to mind another boundary-drawing policy question. Let us imagine that the 2023 review had decided to use regional boundaries with more historic basis, i.e. North Lincolnshire included with the rest of Lincolnshire, and Middlesbrough/Cleveland with Yorkshire. Start drawing constituencies- Darlington and Hartlepool draw themselves easily, as does Stockton (which, quite neatly, avoids any need to be divided). Now the question is what to do with Billingham- pair it up the A19 with Peterlee, or along the A689 with Newton Aycliffe. Given that the Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor that the real review came up with works well, let's use that, and pair Billingham with Peterlee.  There is the obvious problem that Peterlee and Billingham is non-contiguous, but that can be fixed by dividing Hartlepool's Rural West ward and shoving part of it (including the A19) into Peterlee and Billingham. And here we get to the policy question. Is it actually worthwhile to do such a ward split? I would argue that in this hypothetical situation, the preferable option would be leaving the whole ward in Hartlepool, allowing Hartlepool borough to keep the same boundaries as the parliamentary seat and avoiding any ward split, and you just let Peterlee and Billingham exist as a non-geographically-contiguous constituency. After all, Billingham and Peterlee are just as close to each other regardless of whether the stretch of dual carriageway in between is also in the constituency... so what benefits would going for the ward split actually bring, really? Non contiguous constituencies are presumably permitted, given for example Cambridge North station being in Ely and East Cambridgeshire whilst not being contiguous with the rest of the seat, but I don't think there has ever been one as obvious as my hypothetical Peterlee and Billingham. But is there any reason such a constituency shouldn't occur if it makes sense given the nature of surrounding constituencies? |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 30, 2023 8:29:53 GMT
There is the obvious problem that Peterlee and Billingham is non-contiguous, but that can be fixed by dividing Hartlepool's Rural West ward and shoving part of it (including the A19) into Peterlee and Billingham. And here we get to the policy question. Is it actually worthwhile to do such a ward split? I would argue that in this hypothetical situation, the preferable option would be leaving the whole ward in Hartlepool, allowing Hartlepool borough to keep the same boundaries as the parliamentary seat and avoiding any ward split, and you just let Peterlee and Billingham exist as a non-geographically-contiguous constituency. After all, Billingham and Peterlee are just as close to each other regardless of whether the stretch of dual carriageway in between is also in the constituency... so what benefits would going for the ward split actually bring, really? Non contiguous constituencies are presumably permitted, given for example Cambridge North station being in Ely and East Cambridgeshire whilst not being contiguous with the rest of the seat, but I don't think there has ever been one as obvious as my hypothetical Peterlee and Billingham. But is there any reason such a constituency shouldn't occur if it makes sense given the nature of surrounding constituencies? I lean towards the view that if you are going to propose a constituency made up of two parts which aren't adjacent it is better to be honest that that is what you are doing than to artificially force connectivity. I don't think the Commissions would want to go there, though. Obviously disconnected constituencies used to be quite common in Scotland and Wales, thanks to the existence of Districts of Burghs/Boroughs and similar arrangements; Stirling, Falkirk & Grangemouth survived until 1983. There were also, of course, other examples owing to counties and other areas with detached parts; e.g. East Flintshire had exclaves because Flintshire did, and before 1983 Don Valley had an exclave (the parish of Denaby) because Doncaster Rural District did. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Dec 30, 2023 10:51:11 GMT
There is the obvious problem that Peterlee and Billingham is non-contiguous, but that can be fixed by dividing Hartlepool's Rural West ward and shoving part of it (including the A19) into Peterlee and Billingham. And here we get to the policy question. Is it actually worthwhile to do such a ward split? I would argue that in this hypothetical situation, the preferable option would be leaving the whole ward in Hartlepool, allowing Hartlepool borough to keep the same boundaries as the parliamentary seat and avoiding any ward split, and you just let Peterlee and Billingham exist as a non-geographically-contiguous constituency. After all, Billingham and Peterlee are just as close to each other regardless of whether the stretch of dual carriageway in between is also in the constituency... so what benefits would going for the ward split actually bring, really? Non contiguous constituencies are presumably permitted, given for example Cambridge North station being in Ely and East Cambridgeshire whilst not being contiguous with the rest of the seat, but I don't think there has ever been one as obvious as my hypothetical Peterlee and Billingham. But is there any reason such a constituency shouldn't occur if it makes sense given the nature of surrounding constituencies? I lean towards the view that if you are going to propose a constituency made up of two parts which aren't adjacent it is better to be honest that that is what you are doing than to artificially force connectivity. I don't think the Commissions would want to go there, though. Obviously disconnected constituencies used to be quite common in Scotland and Wales, thanks to the existence of Districts of Burghs/Boroughs and similar arrangements; Stirling, Falkirk & Grangemouth survived until 1983. There were also, of course, other examples owing to counties and other areas with detached parts; e.g. East Flintshire had exclaves because Flintshire did, and before 1983 Don Valley had an exclave (the parish of Denaby) because Doncaster Rural District did. This is an issue we revisit often here. Ideally constituencies should contain places connected to each other, with no detached parts, and no mountains in the way or whatever it might be. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 30, 2023 10:52:15 GMT
Ideally? Possibly. But we don't live in an ideal world.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Dec 30, 2023 11:49:38 GMT
Ideally? Possibly. But we don't live in an ideal world. Ain't that the truth. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Dec 30, 2023 12:30:32 GMT
This is an issue we revisit often here. Ideally constituencies should contain places connected to each other, with no detached parts, and no mountains in the way or whatever it might be. The reason I raised the hypothetical that I did is that the idea of a Peterlee and Billingham seat certainly isn't a bad one per se- two towns ten miles from each other which are directly connected by a fast road would make an entirely logical pairing if it fits with the seats around it- and were the ward boundaries a bit different, it would be a seat nobody would even bat an eyelid at. The argument I am putting forth is that constituencies with geographically detached parts should be seen as acceptable in the event of the constituency being reasonably cohesive, i.e. that as long as there are good transport links, it does not matter if said transport links are also in the constituency. And that given the choice, such a geographically detached constituency would be preferable to one which is geographically continuous but has poor links between its settlements. |
|
