Talk:List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Resolved[edit]

Manchester?[edit]

Where are the Manchester constituencies? (Withington, Gorton, Central etc.) unsigned

The Manchester seats are being shaken up, with a provisional date for revised recommondations for April 2006. The final recommondations should be published around December 2006/early 2007 doktorb | words 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Move article?[edit]

I do feel the article should be at Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election. Also, I am wondering whether there are similar articles (existing, planned or in development) for earlier general elections. Seems to me that, ideally, there should be a series of articles, clearly linked to each other as such. Laurel Bush 17:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

How speculative is the article?[edit]

Wondering whether the article lists only constituencies which would exist if the next election were called today, or represents changes which can be expected to become definite/effective if the election is still some years away. Laurel Bush 12:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

I think the readers of this article need to understand the way in which constituencies are decided in the UK; the seats currently listed have been agreed as final recommondations by the relevant boundary comissions, and once an order in council has been laid in Parliament, they will be in place for the next General Election. They will NOT be in place until all seats have been agreed and the order in council has been laid; were an election called for next week, only the already agreed upon and fought Scottish constituencies would exist as per the list. The rest of Great Britain/Northern Ireland would be on current (i.e 1997) boundaries. doktorb 08:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Thanks. Pretty much what I had imagined. Thinking of putting the sense of it into the article. Laurel Bush 12:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC).

Laurel - I agree with your changes but I've tried to make it clear that the size and shape of the constituencies are agreed by the Commission, not Parliament. The final recommondations are decided by the Commissions following public consultation; Parliament can only accept or reject the WHOLE package. Thanks for the work you're doing on my page, other than the page title (which I'm not sure I still accept!) the page looks pretty good now. doktorb 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This has been technically (in three cases) disproved with the exceptions of the Isle of Wight (being split) and Na H'Eilanan an Iar (only being safeguarded as a separate seat) under statutory changes in 2011, thus enacting only part of the package proposed by the Commission and departing from it in fact, so it is Parliament who decides, however by convention no single party-proposed changes are put forward after final recommendations, only cross-party support changes, otherwise this would lead to national bad press, seen as blatant gerrymandering. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Chelmsford[edit]

Why is Chelmsford in this list? It was abolished in 1997. If the list includes Chelmsford, what else does it contain that is wrong & how much reliance can we place on it? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Okay. Now I've read the comments above. So Chelmsford is to be reinstated. Ah well. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Yep - these are the final recommondtions of the 4 Boundary Commissions, as and when they publish their reports. Chelmsford is back !! doktorb | words 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Jan 11th 2006 Update[edit]

On Jan 11th, the boundary commission released Final and Revised recommendations for West Yorkshire and Tyne & Wear. The Final Recommondations have been added here - the revised recommondations cannot be added until they are reported as Final Recomondations later in the year.

A few red links remain, these are either brand new constituencies or existing seats with modified names.

Next planned update is "summer" for Greater Manchester....

doktorb | words 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just Greater Manchester left? Morwen - Talk 15:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morwen - there are a few "revised recommondations" for Tyne and Wear left as well as the whole of Gtr Manchester. In the summer of 2006, the Commission release any revised recommondations for Gtr Manchester, so any seats which are untouched will be "finally recommonded" and put on this table then. Otherwise it's set to be end of the year/2007 for the outstanding seats.
In the recent updates, the whole of West Yorkshire has just been added so the picture for Great Britain is almost complete. Norn Iron do things differently so it's anyones guess with them.. =) doktorb | words 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Electoral Calculus[edit]

Electoral Calculus have completed their analysis of the boundary changes in England and Wales. Could their findings please be integrated into Wikipedia please? Their findings show that Labour will instantly have a reduced majority of 20, with the Tories benefiting the most (in fact the Lib Dems will have fewer seats.) David 10:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to merge this in. I agree it should be there it's just a matter of doing it smoothly - please amend if you think you can do better.Alci12 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost all done ![edit]

Today the Boundary Commission released their update for Manchester. New articles will have to be created for "Blakeley and Broughton"; "Worsley and Eccles South" and "Salford and Eccles".

Only Norn Iron is left to wait upon. doktorb | words 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We're missing a Northern Ireland one: Antrim North is not here. I know there is a proposal to rename it "Antrim Coast & Glens", but without it this whole list is incomplete. (If you count them, there are 649 not 650 on the list!). Shouldn't it go back in? Tobycek 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one Birmingham seat lost?[edit]

Is it just one Birmingham seat lost? According to Birmingham there are currently eleven Birmingham seats. Laurel Bush 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Yes, read the Boundary Commission's report on the changes in the West Midlands, and you will see there has been the axing of one Birmingham seat. doktorb | words 09:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. Laurel Bush 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC).
Just to clarify - there are currently 11 and will be 10 seats for the City of Birmingham council area but one of those is (and will be) Sutton Coldfield, which doesn't appear with the other Birmingham constituencies in the alphabetical list for obvious reasons. Esquimo 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

Could we get a per-county summary of the numbers of seats: saying basically "Singles seats were deleted from Greater Manchester, West Midlands and Somerset, Warwickshire were given one extra seat" - type thing. Morwen - Talk 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it could use a map[edit]

A visual map would be more informative. Jon 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The map should have a key for people who dont know what the colors represent unsigned
This idea has been implemented in a new table, following the style of the excellent US House of Representatives tables. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Not sure of the best place to say this - but the official names for the new constituencies are given in the statutory instruments as linked to at the top of the article, not whatever the ONS has decided to call them. I feel the primary source should be the name used (and are indeed the names used by Wikipedia titles - the page is correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton-under-Lyne_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29 not Ashton under Lyne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracos (talkcontribs) 17:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about punctuation? Incidentally, the way to link to Wikipedia articles within Wikipedia is to enclose the article name in square brackets, e.g., typing [[Ashton-under-Lyne]] produces Ashton-under-Lyne. -Rrius (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the bad link. Mostly punctuation (though I think hyphens in a name could be argued to be more). The Wikipedia style guide says just be consistent regarding periods, and so given the individual page names and the Statutory Instruments, I've removed them, along with the couple of "and"s and the Ashton name. Hope that's okay. Dracos (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2013 Review of UK Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries![edit]

From midnight on Tuesday 13th September 2011 the proposed boundary changes for parliamentary constituencies in England will be published. Is there anything that this page requires to be altered ahead of the proposed changes, Please note the changes being announced are only provisional and are subject to change. Proposed Changes to parliamentary boundaries in Scotland, Wales and Northern will be announced at later dates. I don't recommend anything specific be added on the page yet to reflect the 2013 review but I will leave that up to the rest of you to decide but I do strongly recommend that as a result of the 2013 review all references to the 2006 review of parliamentary boundaries across be now removed from this as that information is no longer needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOTORAL1987 (talkcontribs) 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

While the academic enthusiasm for mass-noting of these complex minor changes was well-founded, by Parliamentary frames of reference they kept a degree of malapportionment for NI, Scotland and Wales and the recommendations have been shelved for the time being. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived result of this discussion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. GTBacchus(talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010List of United Kingdom Parliament constituenciesRelisted. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) These are now the constituencies represented by current MPs and will be contested in future by-elections and general elections until such times as a new boundary regime takes effect. As such, this article should bear the title that has, up till now, been used for the boundaries in current use. -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. There is a horrendous interlocking mass of lists of constituencies around Wikipedia, none having the same format from one election to the next. Some work tidying these up would be a good plan (and yes I probably will do some myself!). The present article would be better named UK Parliament constituency boundary revisions, 2010 which actually describes the content. Then other information about the boundary revision process could be added to it rather than being scattered around lots of pages. Sussexonian (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that makes sense. There was no boundary review in 2010, and the most recent Scottish boundaries took effect at the 2005 election, not 2010. This article is a list of constituencies used at the 2010 election, which is the same thing as a list of current constituencies as they will be used for any by-elections and any general elections that take place between now and when new boundaries take effect. -Rrius (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. While the reasoning above would normally be sound - I'd hold on. DC has promised to redraw the boundaries before the next election; if he does manage it, this'll be the only one for which they're used. Wereon (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the idea of the move is sound, and the name suggested is fine. I do agree that there is a shambolic mass of pages listing constituencies (List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cornwall etc.), many of which were not updated properly to reflect the new constituencies which took effect this year. Also, while David Cameron may want another review, they take a rather long time to carry out: the last review (in England and Wales) took from 2000 to 2005, and didn't become law until 2007, so any revisions are unlikely to be in place for the next election, even if that's not until 2015. --RFBailey (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies should be the name - that's what it is now. Should DC/NC get round to changing anything (I doubt if DC wants to change anything...), then it can be renamed to something like List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies 2005-2015 to show the historical system of that era, and allowing the old page page to stay current.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013[edit]

Boundary changes[edit]

I have just identified some unaltered constituencies under the new heading "Boundary changes". I am thinking it would be useful to have info under this heading more or less of the kind under "Notes" in Former United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. (The latter Notes, however, are very variable in quality and reliability.) Laurel Bush 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

This led to approx. 60% complete collaborative content for the period when changes were planned with the largest changes summarised to help most of the small % of electorate affected, all written in the present tense e.g. "loses part to x and y" or "loses Brompton to ...", however has been as per other changes carefully incorporated to individual articles, which has been accomplished by various editors, such as me, since your helpful comment of 2006. This has resulted in the Fifth PRWC (since the first in 1950) information being available to the affected small minority of voters, well done. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorting[edit]

I've merged the tables and made them sortable, seeing the differences in size between Orkney and Isle of Wight is illuminating 82.69.90.226 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone has evidently changed them back, but I don't know why. In UK Parliament terms, there is no reason to use the separate countries/province, especially as the official regions of England are not used. I wanted to compare the constituency sizes, and the article is now useless for that, if the Western Isles constituency and the Isle of Wight are not in the same list. Salopian (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
While the Boundary Commissions are rightly or wrongly divided to allow for separate administration, also perhaps to assist justification of the extra representation per parliamentary consensus for various countries of the UK at various times, one table I agree is more logical with an extra column for country. My new, improved table will take on board all of your helpful suggestions with columns for: party abbreviation and country.
The pre-2010 changes are a piece of history, not I see, reflected in other countries' articles and not really encyclopedic as very difficult to summarise in such a tabular form while doing them any justice whatsoever. It does now unfortunately, indeed, seem a little odd to include mention of these changes which should be covered in the articles themselves, and of course in many cases the preceding 1997 changes were more dramatic in the most politically studious people's minds may be more relevant, once again debatable. In most cases the changes as described, complex, indeed tend to only affect one village/neighbourhood/town/city district or part of one of these (typically 0 to 3 wards), or of course getting rid of shared wards universally which took place in the Order made for that year. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Parties?[edit]

Maybe we could add a column, or colour, denoting the Party that holds the seat now? Just a thought, but it would help for clarity, and would be sortable. --RobNS 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Constituency Electorate Party County Boundary changes
Aldershot 66,499 Conservative Hampshire Minor alterations
Aldridge-Brownhills 58,695 Labour West Midlands Little change
Altrincham and Sale West 69,605 Lib Dems Greater Manchester Minor alterations
This comment, unopposed to date, has helped to inform my intended edit of today's date: an excellent idea. Colour-coded with key will work best and give the Americans, French and Germans a run for their money in their own articles on the subject of national chamber country divisions. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rethought and tempered to something a little less extreme. As the boundaries are separate from who wins them and often have a long, occasionally socially interesting history, even prompting the original main editor to add a column attempting to detail each change, this article is the apolitical version. The idea of describing the changes and doing them justice is virtually impossible and diversionary from the main content i.e. whether there is any perceived or actual malapportionment

A link to the colourful, political one List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 is now given, as is the correct constitutional format which is to say all constituencies are legally equal and legally to one institution. This should be ranked higher than the expediency of undertaking separate boundary reviews, on an increasingly frequent basis since the reforms of 1987 and 1992, by country naturally. The default order of the table created is by country to permit boundary commission analyses to continue be made on a logical basis however this I suggest is wide open to debate. Adam37 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)