Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 21:05:42 GMT
Tyne Bridge
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,525
|
Post by john07 on Aug 31, 2016 21:39:37 GMT
Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 31, 2016 22:51:24 GMT
I'm not terribly familiar with the 1983 boundaries, but none of the 1997 boundaries you mention seem to be anything but entirely sensible, and amongst the 2010 lot only Dumfriesshire and York Outer are problematic. What's your reasoning? They all look just odd, that's the main reasoning That's not a terribly convincing reasoning. Amongst the 1997 group, one covers the entirety of a town and another two cover as much as the rules would allow to be fitted in to a single seat. That's not particularly odd at all.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,693
|
Post by iain on Aug 31, 2016 22:59:37 GMT
They all look just odd, that's the main reasoning That's not a terribly convincing reasoning. Amongst the 1997 group, one covers the entirety of a town and another two cover as much as the rules would allow to be fitted in to a single seat. That's not particularly odd at all. They also don't really look odd. Cheltenham or Colchester look like a town blob, no different to e.g. Gloucester and Chelmsford.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 31, 2016 23:30:18 GMT
Whilst opinion may be divided on the merits of the word "worst", these are the constituencies since 1983 that have always left me scratching my head as to why? 1983: Cheltenham, Bath, Great Grimsby, Darlington, Carlisle 1997: Colchester, Slough, Cheltenham, Aberdeen Central 2010: Dumfriesshire, Peterborough, Lewisham East, Havant, Bath, York Central, York Outer, Great Grimsby, Preston What happened to the boundaries of Great Grimsby between 1997 and 2010 which made them so much more acceptable than the 1983 and 2010 versions? You seem to have an irrational dislike of doughnut seats (Carlisle, Bath Cheltenham, Colchester etc) - do you prefer the type of Colchester North/ Colchester South & Maldon type arrangement? (actually they do belong here). And what on earth is wrong with Slough ?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 31, 2016 23:31:33 GMT
Boothferry was an awful seat. Stupid name too
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,508
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 31, 2016 23:32:25 GMT
Meon Valley, Central Devon, Faversham & Mid Kent, Weaver Vale. All 'left overs' seats.
I also think Mid Sussex is terribly contrived, it is the only seat I can think of that can be justified in so many ways but in reality is a complete, incoherent mess.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,719
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 1, 2016 0:04:14 GMT
And what on earth is wrong with Slough ? It hasn't had enough bombs dropped on it yet
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,274
|
Post by YL on Sept 1, 2016 7:02:11 GMT
Boothferry was an awful seat. Stupid name too The problem there was with the "county" it was part of.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 1, 2016 7:25:57 GMT
In my opinion, the 10 constituencies that currently exist in Britain that in my opinion have the worst boundaries are: 1. Clwyd South It's as if when they were drawing up seats, Clwyd South was created from what was left. Just wait until the present Boundary Commission merges it with north Montgomery.......
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,973
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 1, 2016 9:33:53 GMT
I've been looking at the current map of Scotland and I'd like to nominate:
- Lanark and Rutherglen (jointly) for the terrible dividing line through Hamilton
- E Duns and Cumbernauld (also jointly) for the even more brutal boundary through the middle of Kirkintilloch.
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Sept 2, 2016 17:53:17 GMT
Glasgow Pollok, 1983-97, was a horror: two virtually discrete and socially very different areas linked by a footpath bridge.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 2, 2016 18:18:35 GMT
I've been looking at the current map of Scotland and I'd like to nominate:
- Lanark and Rutherglen (jointly) for the terrible dividing line through Hamilton
- E Duns and Cumbernauld (also jointly) for the even more brutal boundary through the middle of Kirkintilloch.
It's somewhat of a tradition in Scottish boundary reviews that you have to have a really awful split of Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Sept 2, 2016 20:48:57 GMT
Glasgow Pollok, 1983-97, was a horror: two virtually discrete and socially very different areas linked by a footpath bridge. Proof readers insisted it was spelt Pollock also.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 3, 2016 7:37:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 3, 2016 8:32:25 GMT
Bearsden is only joined to Strathkelvin by the tiniest neck of land (with no road). Surely Strathkelvin & Milngavie and Clydebank & Bearsden would have better road links in both cases?
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Sept 3, 2016 10:24:43 GMT
Bearsden is only joined to Strathkelvin by the tiniest neck of land (with no road). Surely Strathkelvin & Milngavie and Clydebank & Bearsden would have better road links in both cases? It would nowadays, yes. But it wouldn't have been possible with either the 1983-97 or the 1997-2005/2011 Clydebank & Milngavie because the one road link between Clydebank and East Dunbartonshire was via a Milngavie ward (Clober). The anomaly with Strathkelvin & Bearsden is that for some reason the East Dunbartonshire-Glasgow boundary doesn't always run along the river Kelvin.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 3, 2016 11:25:08 GMT
Bearsden is only joined to Strathkelvin by the tiniest neck of land (with no road). Surely Strathkelvin & Milngavie and Clydebank & Bearsden would have better road links in both cases? It would nowadays, yes. But it wouldn't have been possible with either the 1983-97 or the 1997-2005/2011 Clydebank & Milngavie because the one road link between Clydebank and East Dunbartonshire was via a Milngavie ward (Clober). The anomaly with Strathkelvin & Bearsden is that for some reason the East Dunbartonshire-Glasgow boundary doesn't always run along the river Kelvin. The old Westminster boundary of S&B/C&M is still in place for Scottish Parliament elections.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 3, 2016 12:19:39 GMT
There were the ones with detached parts for pointless historic reasons, eg East Flintshire or Dunfermline. Likewise Monmouth
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Sept 5, 2016 17:07:22 GMT
It would nowadays, yes. But it wouldn't have been possible with either the 1983-97 or the 1997-2005/2011 Clydebank & Milngavie because the one road link between Clydebank and East Dunbartonshire was via a Milngavie ward (Clober). The anomaly with Strathkelvin & Bearsden is that for some reason the East Dunbartonshire-Glasgow boundary doesn't always run along the river Kelvin. The old Westminster boundary of S&B/C&M is still in place for Scottish Parliament elections. It's slightly different - more of north Bearsden is in C&M than before - but not drastically so. What I meant, though, was that it would be reasonable to have a Clydebank & Bearsden/Strathkelvin & Milngavie arrangement under the new wards because the East Dunbartonshire ward that has a road connection with Clydebank is a Bearsden ward (Bearsden North) not a Milngavie ward, and that this change wouldn't have been possible until the 2011 review, even though the BCS chose not to run with it. The current S&B/C&M boundary around Allander Toll (the A807/A879 roundabout) looks pretty dreadful on a map, of course. But the reason it's a problem is because of the Glasgow boundary extending so far north. My point was that if the Glasgow boundary ran along the river Kelvin then Boclair Road would run from Bearsden to Allander Toll without crossing any local authority boundaries, thus removing the most obvious problem with it.
|
|