Jump to content

Talk:2023 periodic review of Westminster constituencies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Requested move 27 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2021 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies → 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies – To be consistent with the now abandoned 2018 Periodic Review which was reported by the Boundary Commissions in September 2018, the review now commencing after the passing of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 should reference the year the Commissions will issue their final reports, namely 2023. This is in accordance with web-site of the Boundary Commission for England.See https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/home/2023-review/ JSboundaryman (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Article creator here. I chose "2021..." as a placeholder because I wasn't sure if the Review would be knows as the Seventh or Eighth Periodic Review. I still can't find any reference to this, so I'm happy if we agree to move it somewhere referring to a year rather than the number. I don't yet have a preference to 2021 (when the review starts) or 2023 (when it is set to finish) or something else. I'm very free and easy about it. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no further comments on this request, I suggest it can now be processed. I feel strongly that the title should match the terminology being used by the Boundary Commissions to avoid confusion. JSboundaryman (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Equal representation

Islands. Protected seats. Why? This is so they do not have equal representation. They are departures from equal representation. They are derogations from the overarching, fair and proper rule and principle of no (or minimal) malapportionment. This is frankly newspeak "equal". It should be expunged post haste. It is nonsense and claptrap and I stick by my choice of words as I am not prone to over-statement unlike a glut of latin-french repetitive and disgusting phraseology in legal contexts on here, the sort of conquering Norman stick your nose in the air if you will.- Adam37 Talk 08:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"They are departures from equal representation" is a point of view. If you have citations to prove this, and they can be added to this article while staying on topic, then do so. "This is frankly newspeak "equal". It should be expunged post haste." This is not neutral. I have no idea what you mean about "latin-french repetitive and disgusting phraseology...." never mind "Norman stick your nose in the air." This is my concern about you Adam, you have the knowledge but maybe not the Wikipedia skillset. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is in every Review. Such "special cases" islands have a vast deficiency, they are electorally underweight. How can anyone headline that "equal representation". Perhaps it was me. It was probably neither of us. You are correct you have to have every fact demonstrably right before debating on here, but it need not be like that. One could actually look to the overall picture rather than pointing fingers or worse constantly dishing out thanks and thus making friendships and engratiating oneself to each other which seems to be the only way to get ahead here. One rather welcomes black/white factual matrix rather than the office politics and dumbing down, I think that is what WP:NOTBOOK stands for. This is not a place for lies, damned lies and statistics. I will always counter any misleading things with counterfacts. And I am to that extent stubborn and short-tempered; true. I think you know well what I mean about repetition and grandiloquence. As I say we have all been guilty of it; how could anyone in any profession these days not. There is no place for it here if the Fluff Essay is to be accepted.- Adam37 Talk 15:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly understand the point you are trying to make. The stuff about pointing fingers and dishing out thanks seems like a personal grievance and nothing to do with the article or your edits. "Black/white factual matrix" sounds like a dance remix album. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing into force

As of 3 November 2023 I cannot find the Order in Council to make effect to the proposals, yet the statute requires the government to do so within 4 months of receiving the proposals unless there are "exceptional circumstances". The Act (Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020) specifies: "If the draft of an Order in Council is not submitted under subsection (1) before the end of the four month period, the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay one or more statements before Parliament in accordance with subsection (4A) specifying the exceptional circumstances." Is the government breaking the law? Or have I fundamentally misunderstood? 92.19.28.178 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've not misunderstood. The Order has yet to be submitted. Explanation comes there not from the government doktorb wordsdeeds 13:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what we're looking for: Statutory Instrument made 15th Nov, coming into effect 29th Nov. PamD 17:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

This article is 150 kB long, much longer than a standard article length, and much of the information is heavy detail on the process (e.g. the legislation detail, the details of the Initial and Revised proposal stages) which is both not particularly relevant to the general purpose of the article and may be confusing to wade through for the average reader. I think it may be a good idea to split off the bulk of the detail into Timeline of the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies and keep this article focused on summarizing the review and its results but with less focus on the entire process behind it. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 04:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of much of this article, I agree with this proposal. I also propose that the Legislation section should be moved to a separate article entitled Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020. JSboundaryman (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constituencies with changed boundaries

None of the sections of the article seems to include seats such as Morecambe and Lunesdale (UK Parliament constituency) and Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency), both of which have substantial changes to their boundaries but keep the same name. For completeness, surely these should be listed? PamD 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, I agree. I will add a section of constituency names retained, indicating the extent of change. JSboundaryman (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSboundaryman Thanks! PamD 18:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing and newly created seats

The article distinguishes between disappearing and newly created seats on the one hand, and "linked seats" on the other, but the distinction seems a little odd. So

  • "An existing seat where no part forms the largest part of any new seat is considered to be "disappearing". Conversely, any new seat which doesn't contain the largest part of any existing seat is considered to be genuinely "newly created" ".
  • "An existing seat can be regarded as being linked to a newly named seat where part of the existing seat contributes the largest part of the newly named seat." - even when no existing seat contributes more than 50% to the new seat.

Surely most people would consider an old seat split between several new seats, none of which contains most of the people in the old seat, as disappearing, and a new seat which is formed from several old seats, none of which contributes most of its people to the new seat, as a "newly created seat".

For example, Wetherby and Easingwold is formed from four old seats (in two counties), and includes only 38.5% of the population of its largest contributing old seat (Elmet and Rothwell) (see interactive map here), but is not considered a "newly created seat".--Mhockey (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing this article from its predecessors

I feel it is at least somewhat notable that this is the first periodic review to actually go into effect since the fifth periodic review of Westminster constituencies. It doesn't help matters that the 2013, 2018, and 2023 reviews aren't numbered, presumably because of the failure of the previous two? Perhaps this should be noted on the article, as the fifth review does (saying it was the first change in Westminster constituencies since 1997).

There doesn't seem to be any list of these reviews, and navigating between them is a bit of a nightmare Paintato34343 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_periodic_review_of_Westminster_constituencies&oldid=1253402637"