2009/10 boundary changes. Part I: UPDATED

[minionofmidas]

More comments soon, some quick ones now...

secondly, a hypothetical 5% to the Conservatives

Is that the swing needed for a majority or something?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm still pissed off that they decided to carry on using the "Avon" joke...

They didn't, technically speaking. They made up new NE Somerset, N Somerset, City of Bristol, and S Gloucestershire jokes.

[minionofmidas]

Moorlands/Stoke area remapping was quite controversial IIRC, and the final map is very different from the preliminary recommendations.

And Ludlow does NOT need to be renamed. Nor did Hereford and Leominster need to be renamed. at names as ugly as "Hereford & North Herefordshire".

[minionofmidas]

Moorlands/Stoke area remapping was quite controversial IIRC,

Yes it was; and always has been ever since the Tories discovered (in the early '80's) that the people drawing the boundaries had sod all knowledge of the area. Most people don't actually; the general view seems to be that Kidsgrove was only ever added in the '95 changes. It wasn't; it was an integral part of the seat (then called Leek) until 1983.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it may have been; I'll have to check that...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem is Ludlow isn't even the biggest town in the constituency anymore; Bridgnorth is.
Best name for it would probably be Ludlow & Bridgnorth; one half of the seat revolves around Ludlow, the other around Bridgnorth (sort of; it's part of the Wolverhampton commuterzone now, but Ludlow & Wolverhampton Far West just sounds bloody silly...).


One thing they should do though is to change the name of South Shropshire DC back (well, sort of...) to Ludlow DC. And by doing that, keeping the name of the Westminster constituency as "Ludlow" would become very easy to defend on geographic grounds.
O/c Shropshire will probably be going Unitary soon enough anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's actually Hereford & South Herefordshire, but I agree again. Makes no sense as pretty much the entire constituency revolves around Hereford to some degree (even Ross does, although people in Ross would rather not admit to that). South Herefordshire was the name of a long abolished District Council, btw.

(likes constituency name "Leek", makes mental note to pester next boundary commission to bring it back)
I just don't see why a constituency name should be changed when the constituency itself has hardly changed, and the name's been in use for quite some time. In other regions (for example, blocking the renaming of "Hove" to "Hove & Portslade) the Boundary Commission is actually taking the same view.

[minionofmidas]

I sort of see your point; problem is that the constituency has changed quite a bit (and not in a good way) even if the boundaries haven't.

That's what I meant...

[minionofmidas]

Re York Outer...
It's better than the alternative the Commission had under the rules ... ie York E and W (or N and S) constituencies, splitting the city proper along some wholly unnatural line, both extending far into, indeed past, the suburbs... the fault lies with the rules. ("City of York", much larger than the historical city, and a good bit larger than the City of York District within North Yorkshire of 74 to whenever, is a UA now - and as it's entitlement under the quota is very close to 2 seats, they couldn't keep it grouped with N Yorkshire anyways - as they did wherever they could make a case for that, basically.)

[minionofmidas]

I especially like the changes to High Peak.

They removed Hathersage IIRC?