Talk:2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles UK Parliament constituencies 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.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

"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 _words^deeds 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 _words^deeds 19:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 _words^deeds 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]

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]

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]