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

 
 
 
 

The IPPC report on the melting ice caps makes for terrifying reading

A Greeland iceberg, 2007. Image: Getty.

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the UN body responsible for communicating the science of climate breakdown – released its long-awaited Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

Based on almost 7,000 peer-reviewed research articles, the report is a cutting-edge crash course in how human-caused climate breakdown is changing our ice and oceans and what it means for humanity and the living planet. In a nutshell, the news isn’t good.

Cryosphere in decline

Most of us rarely come into contact with the cryosphere, but it is a critical part of our climate system. The term refers to the frozen parts of our planet – the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, the icebergs that break off and drift in the oceans, the glaciers on our high mountain ranges, our winter snow, the ice on lakes and the polar oceans, and the frozen ground in much of the Arctic landscape called permafrost.

The cryosphere is shrinking. Snow cover is reducing, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and permafrost is thawing. We’ve known this for most of my 25-year career, but the report highlights that melting is accelerating, with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity and marine and high mountain ecosystems.

At the moment, we’re on track to lose more than half of all the permafrost by the end of the century. Thousands of roads and buildings sit on this frozen soil – and their foundations are slowly transitioning to mud. Permafrost also stores almost twice the amount of carbon as is present in the atmosphere. While increased plant growth may be able to offset some of the release of carbon from newly thawed soils, much will be released to the atmosphere, significantly accelerating the pace of global heating.

Sea ice is declining rapidly, and an ice-free Arctic ocean will become a regular summer occurrence as things stand. Indigenous peoples who live in the Arctic are already having to change how they hunt and travel, and some coastal communities are already planning for relocation. Populations of seals, walruses, polar bears, whales and other mammals and sea birds who depend on the ice may crash if sea ice is regularly absent. And as water in its bright-white solid form is much more effective at reflecting heat from the sun, its rapid loss is also accelerating global heating.

Glaciers are also melting. If emissions continue on their current trajectory, smaller glaciers will shrink by more than 80 per cent by the end of the century. This retreat will place increasing strain on the hundreds of millions of people globally who rely on glaciers for water, agriculture, and power. Dangerous landslides, avalanches, rockfalls and floods will become increasingly normal in mountain areas.


Rising oceans, rising problems

All this melting ice means that sea levels are rising. While seas rose globally by around 15cm during the 20th century, they’re now rising more than twice as fast –- and this rate is accelerating.

Thanks to research from myself and others, we now better understand how Antarctica and Greenland’s ice sheets interact with the oceans. As a result, the latest report has upgraded its long-term estimates for how much sea level is expected to rise. Uncertainties still remain, but we’re headed for a rise of between 60 and 110cm by 2100.

Of course, sea level isn’t static. Intense rainfall and cyclones – themselves exacerbated by climate breakdown – can cause water to surge metres above the normal level. The IPCC’s report is very clear: these extreme storm surges we used to expect once per century will now be expected every year by mid-century. In addition to rapidly curbing emissions, we must invest millions to protect at-risk coastal and low-lying areas from flooding and loss of life.

Ocean ecosystems

Up to now, the ocean has taken up more than 90 per cent of the excess heat in the global climate system. Warming to date has already reduced the mixing between water layers and, as a consequence, has reduced the supply of oxygen and nutrients for marine life. By 2100 the ocean will take up five to seven times more heat than it has done in the past 50 years if we don’t change our emissions trajectory. Marine heatwaves are also projected to be more intense, last longer and occur 50 times more often. To top it off, the ocean is becoming more acidic as it continues to absorb a proportion of the carbon dioxide we emit.

Collectively, these pressures place marine life across the globe under unprecedented threat. Some species may move to new waters, but others less able to adapt will decline or even die out. This could cause major problems for communities that depend on local seafood. As it stands, coral reefs – beautiful ecosystems that support thousands of species – will be nearly totally wiped out by the end of the century.

Between the lines

While the document makes some striking statements, it is actually relatively conservative with its conclusions – perhaps because it had to be approved by the 195 nations that ratify the IPCC’s reports. Right now, I would expect that sea level rise and ice melt will occur faster than the report predicts. Ten years ago, I might have said the opposite. But the latest science is painting an increasingly grave picture for the future of our oceans and cryosphere – particularly if we carry on with “business as usual”.

The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of heating is especially important for the icy poles, which warm much faster than the global average. At 1.5°C of warming, the probability of an ice-free September in the Arctic ocean is one in 100. But at 2°C, we’d expect to see this happening about one-third of the time. Rising sea levels, ocean warming and acidification, melting glaciers, and permafrost also will also happen faster – and with it, the risks to humanity and the living planet increase. It’s up to us and the leaders we choose to stem the rising tide of climate and ecological breakdown.

Mark Brandon, Professor of Polar Oceanography, The Open University.

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