Here are England's worst (new) constituency names

The proposed new constituencies of the East Midlands. Image: bce2018.org.uk.

The naming of constituencies is an important matter. A good constituency name conveys a sense of the place, both its major settlements and features, and ideally also a clue to its most important electoral features while nodding to its history. Also, the names of constituencies should make sense in context with one another.

The 2018 boundary review has had some undoubted successes: Corby has become the more fitting Corby & East Northamptonshire, reflecting not only the town but the outlying villages that are such an important part of why the seat is marginal.

My own new constituency of Finsbury Park & Stoke Newington does a lot of these well, containing within it its major park, Underground station, and the historic and now defunct borough it contains within it.

But the other names… they’re not so good. Some, in fact, are downright awful. Here, I attempt to explain why, and to offer positive alternatives.

Basildon & East Thurrock

How can there one constituency called Thurrock and another called Basildon & East Thurrock? Either there is Thurrock left over once the boundaries of Thurrock constituency have been drawn, in which case Thurrock is a lie, or there is no Thurrock left in which case Basildon & Thurrock East needs to thurrock right off, to put it mildly.

The bulk of Thurrock town is in Thurrock but some outlying wards of the council are in Basildon & East Thurrock, admittedly. But by that argument Billericay should have a namechange too, as it contains Basildon wards, while a good chunk of the actual town is Castle Point. The three constituencies should be called Thurrock, Basildon & Stanford-le-Hope and Billericay. Castle Point meanwhile should become Castle Point & Pitsea.

Bermondsey and Old Southwark

This makes no sense. The reason for the “old” is that it contains all the wards of the ancient (as opposed to the current) borough of Southwark. But of course, no other ancient borough is represented in this way. There is no “Old” in front of the St Pancras in Camden & St Pancras, or Shoreditch in Shoreditch and Bethnal Green, or in front of the “Finsbury” in Islington South & Finsbury (of which, more below).

But the confusion of course is that these other names have either fallen into disuse or refer to the same area, while the meaning of “Southwark” has changed significantly. Just call it Bermondsey & Two Cathedrals.

Bosworth

This is an odd one: it contains the majority of the wards of Bosworth & Hinckley Borough Council, including all the wards of Bosworth and Hinckley. Yet it’s not called Bosworth & Hinckley, when it clearly should be.

This is more aggravating because there are number of constituencies named for their local authority with a significantly weaker claim to the name. Amber Valley, for instance, is named for its local authority, which takes its name from the Amber River. Neither the mouth nor the source of the river is contained within the constituency, and there are a number of leftover Amber Valley wards scattered elsewhere. However, I cannot think of a more obvious name, so I will allow it, but seriously: this should be called Bosworth  Hinckley.

Brighton Seahaven & Kemptown, Brighton Pavilion, Hove & Regency

What kind of nomenclature even is this? Three Brighton and Hove constituencies, one of which doesn’t have the Brighton prefix, one of which is named for a major settlement, another which is named for a pretty cool architectural feature.

The problem is that the boundary changes have resulted in a really weird set of ward choices, which means it’s difficult to see what you could do to fix it. But let’s at least call Pavilion Brighton Elm Grove, a pleasingly fitting name for Caroline Lucas’ constituency and one that fits with Seahaven & Kempton.

Bristol North West

Can we stop and appreciate how strange Bristol North West’s boundaries are? They stretch way out into the seat to encompass a series of neighbouring islands, which, fair enough, people on very small islands deserve the vote too. Except, plot twist: there are no people on these islands.

They don’t need to be franchised! This is just a bizarre choice that no other set of boundaries makes. Why do it?

Carshalton & Wallington

Why do Carshalton and Wallington merit inclusion in the constituency name but Beddington, which has an equivalent population, does not? Call it Carshalton, Beddington & Wallington.

City of Chester

Why is this allowed? It’s not City of Colchester, or Wells, or to be frank any number of places who could do this sort of thing.  (And let’s be frank, if your city fits in a constituency boundary, its city status is dubious at best.) What makes Chester think it deserves special treatment?

Just call it Chester.

City of Durham & Easington

The “City of” is acceptable because, unlike the previous example, the city and the county are called the same thing. But I have follow-ups, too, which is I don’t understand why the outlying town of Easington (population 5,559) deserves to be in the constituency name but Horton (5,809) and Murton (5,820) do not. Just call this one City of Durham.

Epping Forest

This is particularly aggravating: not only does this constituency not contain all of the wards of the Epping Forest local authority, it doesn’t contain all of the actual forest (the tip of the forest proper is in Chingford & Woodford Green, while parts of the lower forest are in Brentwood & Ongar). Call it Loughton, Chigwell & Waltham Abbey to capture its essential Essex Toryness and historic abbey.

Hackney

Fuck off.

Seriously. Fuck off.

The metropolitan borough of Hackney contains 21 wards, ten of which are not in this constituency. Many of the borough’s iconic buildings and parks are not in this constituency. London Fields is not in this constituency. The Rio Cinema is not in this constituency. Stamford Hill is not in this constituency. The CLR James Memorial Library is not in this constituency. Clissold Park is not in this constituency. The Geffreye Museum is not in this constituency. Church Street is not in this-[That’s enough-Ed.]

I would say this is typical of the flattening of the borough’s identity thanks to hipsters but this constituency DOESN’T EVEN INCLUDE THE MOST HIPSTER PARTS OF THE FUCKING BOROUGH.

Why not just call this constituency London and have done with it? I mean, if names don’t matter, if the Boundary Commission is just fucking around for no good reason, let’s go crazy. Let’s call it Europe.

I would be willing to accept Hackney Central.

Harlow

Harlow, like a lot of town constituencies, is a mixture of its major town and outlying villages, most of which are Epping Forest wards. It’s a bit of a shame that on the whole constituencies like this are better served by the boundary review – as mentioned earlier, Corby & East Northamptonshire, but also Luton North & Houghton Regis, both formerly just Corby and Luton North, who both come out well here.

The joy of renaming Epping Forest is that allows us to give Harlow the more accurate name of Harlow & Epping Forest North.

Lincoln & North Hykeham

This is accurate, but it’s quite sad that the very narrow strictures of the Boundary Comission have led to its creation. If these changes go ahead, the next parliament will be the first since 1254 not to have a Lincoln constituency: solely to satisfy a very poor analysis of why Labour did so well in 2005, and in order to give the Conservatives a pretty paltry advantage over Labour (which may in any case quickly flip the other way round, such is the nature of electoral coalitions).

Loughborough & North Rushcliffe, South Rushcliffe & Clifton

Rushcliffe borough council possesses the country’s most gloriously eccentric names – it contains, among other delights, a Bunny ward, a Gotham ward and a Suton Bonington, which sounds like the name of a British fop in an American sitcom.

But it’s also the scene of this particularly annoying bit of inconsistent constituency naming. Either have a North Rushcliffe & Loughborough or a Clifton & South Rushcliffe (I narrowly prefer the latter, but I’m not going to go to war over one or the other).

Oxford

See Hackney. There are major parts of Oxford that are not in this constituency.

In many ways this is arguably worse than what they’ve done with Hackney because at least then they’ve followed through and pretended that there aren’t any bits of Hackney anywhere else.  But there’s also an Abingdon & Oxford North. Even the Boundary Commission think this is a stupid name.

Just take a leaf out of York’s book and call this one Oxford Central and Abingdon & Oxford North can stay as it is. Or become Oxford Outer.

Norwich North

The majority of this constituency is not in Norwich, either from a local authority perspective or a plain common sense perspective. The bulk of voters in “Norwich” North live in the Norfolk local authority of Broadland. And we wonder why people are disillusioned with politics these days. How can we trust the system when we can’t even trust our constituencies? Call it Norwich North & Sprowston.

Richmond Park

It’s a small thing, but it’s silly to need to differentiate between this constituency and Richmond (Yorks) in Yorkshire when we could just call the one in London Barnes & East Sheen.

Sheffield Hallam

Sheffield constituencies: Sheffield CentralSheffield North & EcclesfieldSheffield SouthSheffield South East, and Sheffield Hallam. One of these is not a compass point. Sort it out.

South Holland & the Deepings

Great band, lost their way a bit after their third album though.

South Leicestershire

The constituencies that surround Leicester can’t decide whether they are named after compass points or places. Places are more informative. Call this one Blaby & Broughton-Astley and North-West Leicestershire should become Ashby & Three Castles.

Wakefield Rural

Wow, they phoned this one in pretty damn hard. Either call Wakefield Wakefield Urban” or come up with a proper name for this constituency.

Wirral West & Bebington

Spot the odd one out: BirkenheadWallasey, Garston & HaleswoodWirral West & Bebington. Just call this one Bebington & Heswall so it fits the theme of the rest of the area.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at our parent title, the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.