DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the North West Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the North West Contents Appendix 1 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West Contents Summary 3 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review 7 3 Initial proposals for the North West 11 Initial proposals for the Cumbria sub‑region 12 Initial proposals for the Lancashire sub‑region 13 Initial proposals for the Merseyside (less the Wirral) 15 sub‑region Initial proposals for the Greater Manchester, 16 Wirral and Cheshire sub‑region 4 How to have your say 23 Annex A: Initial proposals for constituencies, 27 including wards and electorates Glossary 44 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West 1 Summary Who we are and what we do What is changing in the North West? The Boundary Commission for England is an independent and impartial The North West has been allocated 68 non‑departmental public body which is constituencies – a reduction of seven from responsible for reviewing Parliamentary the current number. constituency boundaries in England. Due to the significant change required The 2018 Review throughout the region, our proposals leave 14 of the 75 existing constituencies We have the task of periodically reviewing unchanged. the boundaries of all the Parliamentary constituencies in England. We are currently As it has not always been possible to conducting a review on the basis of rules allocate whole numbers of constituencies set by Parliament in 2011. The rules tell to individual counties, we have grouped us that we must make recommendations some county and local authority areas for new Parliamentary constituency into sub‑regions. The number of boundaries in September 2018. They constituencies allocated to each sub‑region also result in a significant reduction in is determined by the electorate of the the number of constituencies in England combined local authorities. (from 533 to 501), and require that every constituency – apart from two specified Consequently, it has been necessary to exceptions – must have an electorate that propose some constituencies that cross is no smaller than 71,031 and no larger county or unitary authority boundaries. than 78,507. We have proposed that the metropolitan Initial proposals boroughs of Greater Manchester be combined in a sub‑region, with the We published our initial proposals for Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, the unitary the new Parliamentary constituency authorities of Cheshire East, and Chester boundaries in England on 13 September West and Chester, and the boroughs of 2016. Information about the proposed Halton and Warrington. constituencies is now available on our website. Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West 3 Sub‑region Existing allocation Proposed allocation Cumbria 6 5 Lancashire 16 14 Merseyside (less the Wirral) 11 10 Greater Manchester, the Wirral and Cheshire 42 39 We propose two constituencies that How to have your say contain electors from both Cheshire and Greater Manchester, which combine We are consulting on our initial proposals Altrincham and Knutsford in a constituency for a 12‑week period, from 13 September and the towns of Bramhall and Poynton in 2016 to 5 December 2016. We encourage a constituency. everyone to use this opportunity to help us shape the new constituencies – the Although we have treated Lancashire and more views we hear, the more informed our Merseyside as separate sub‑regions, we decisions will be when considering whether have proposed one constituency that to revise our proposals. crosses the county boundary, which combines three wards of the Borough of Our website, at www.bce2018.org.uk has Ribble Valley with the town of Southport. more information about how to respond as well as details of where and when we We propose five constituencies entirely will be holding public hearings in your contained in the county of Cumbria. area. You can also follow us on Twitter @BCE2018 or using #2018boundaryreview. 4 Boundary Commission for England 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 1 The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and You can find further information on our impartial non‑departmental public body website, at www.bce2018.org.uk. You which is required to review Parliamentary can also contact us with any general constituency boundaries in England. We enquiries by emailing information@ conduct a review of all the constituencies boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk, in England every five years. Our role is to or by calling 020 7276 1102. make recommendations to Parliament for new constituency boundaries. 2 The Chair of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons, but by convention he does not participate in the review. The current Deputy Chair, Mrs Justice Patterson, and two further Commissioners, take decisions on proposals and recommendations for new constituency boundaries. Further information about the Commissioners can be found on our website.1 1 www.bce2018.org.uk Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West 5 2 Background to the 2018 review 3 We are currently conducting a review 5 This is a significant change to the old of Parliamentary constituency boundaries rules under which Parliamentary boundary on the basis of rules set by Parliament in reviews took place, in which achieving as 2011. 2 These rules require us to reduce the close to the average number of electors number of constituencies in the UK and in each constituency was an aim, but make more equal the number of electors in there was no statutory fixed permissible each constituency. This report covers only range. For example, in England, existing the work of the Boundary Commission for constituencies (drawn under the previous England (there are separate Commissions rules) currently range from 54,232 to for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) 105,448 electors. Furthermore, the current and, in particular, introduces our initial constituencies were constructed under the proposals for the North West. last completed review, which relied on the data contained in the electoral registers for 4 The rules set out in the legislation 2000 and applied the earlier version of the state that there will be 600 Parliamentary rules. Achieving a more even distribution constituencies covering the UK – of electors in every constituency across a reduction of 50 from the current England, together with the reduction in number. This means that the number of the total number of constituencies, means constituencies in England must be reduced that a significant amount of change to the from 533 to 501. There are also other existing map of constituencies is inevitable. rules that the Commission has regard to when conducting the review – a full set 6 Our Guide to the 2018 Review of the rules can be found in our Guide to contains further detailed background the 2018 Review3 published in summer information, and explains all the policies 2016, but they are also summarised later and procedures that we are following in in this chapter. Most significantly, the rules conducting the review. We encourage require every constituency we recommend anyone wishing to be involved in the review (with the exception of two covering the Isle to read this document, which will give them of Wight) to contain no fewer than 71,031 a greater understanding of the rules and electors and no more than 78,507. constraints placed on the Commission, especially if they are intending to comment on our initial proposals. 2 The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, available at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/contents 3 Available at www.bce2018.org.uk and at all places of deposit Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West 7 The rules in the legislation 9 Although the first review under the new rules will unavoidably result in 7 As well as the primary rule that significant change, we have also taken constituencies must have no fewer than into account the boundaries of existing 71,031 electors and no more than 78,507, constituencies so far as we can. We have the legislation also states that, when tried to retain existing constituencies deciding on boundaries, the Commission as part of our initial proposals wherever may also take into account: possible, as long as the other factors can also be satisfied. This, however, has proved • special geographical considerations, difficult. Our initial proposals retain just including in particular the size, shape under 19% of the existing constituencies and accessibility of a constituency; in the North West – the remainder are • local government boundaries as they new constituencies (although in a number existed on 7 May 2015; of cases we have been able to limit the • boundaries of existing constituencies; changes to existing constituencies, making and only minor changes as necessary to enable • any local ties that would be broken by us to comply with the rules). changes in constituencies. 10 Our proposals are based on the nine 8 In addition, in relation to local regions used for European elections (though government boundaries in particular, it it should be clear that our work has no should be noted that we are obliged to take effect on European electoral matters, nor is into account local government boundaries it affected by the recent referendum result). as they existed in May 2015, rather than This report relates to the North West. There any subsequent changes that may have are eight other separate reports containing been made (or are due to be made). Our our initial proposals for the other regions. initial proposals for the North West (and the You can find more details in our Guide to accompanying maps) are therefore based on the 2018 Review and on our website. While local government boundaries as they existed this approach does not prevent anyone in May 2015. Our Guide to the 2018 Review from making proposals to us that cross outlines further our policy on how, and to regional boundaries (for example, between what extent, we take into account local the North West and the North East regions), government boundaries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive
    To: Members of the Development Management Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive Councillors: Chair – J Grime Town Hall P Carey, G Friend, B Maher, T McCarthy, L Sankey Street Morgan, K Mundry, R Purnell, S Wright, J Warrington Wheeler, B Barr, S Parish. WA1 1UH 22 September 2020 Development Management Committee Wednesday, 30 September 2020, 6.00pm Venue – This meeting will take place remotely in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 - Section 78 Members of the public can view this meeting by visiting www.warrington.gov.uk/committees Agenda prepared by Jennie Cordwell, Senior Democratic Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 442139 E-mail: [email protected] A G E N D A Part 1 Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion. Item 1. Apologies for Absence To record any apologies received. 2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 1 Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached. Item Page No. 3. Minutes 4 To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September 2020 as a correct record. 4. Planning Applications 21 Report of the Director of Growth 2018/32247 - FORMER PARKSIDE COLLIERY TO THE EAST OF THE 23 A49, WINWICK ROAD, NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS, WA12 8DB 2020/36900 - WARRINGTON ROAD, HATTON, WARRINGTON 285 2020/37026 – BRIDGE FARM, DAM LANE, RIXTON WITH 307 GLAZEBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA3 6LE 2020/36842 – ARLEY LANDFILL SITE, FORREST WAY, 330 WARRINGTON, WA4 6YZ 5.
    [Show full text]
  • South Ribble Borough Council
    ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL 1 Electoral Review of South Ribble Borough Council Introduction Each year, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England audits the levels of electoral imbalances arising in each English local authority area in order to establish whether there is a need for an electoral review. Imbalances can arise from changing demographics and new developments, and movement of electors between local authority areas, as well as within individual areas. There are two elements that the Commission takes into account when assessing the need for an electoral review. Both relate to the level of electoral representation within a local authority area. Electoral inequality exists when voters are either over-represented or under-represented by their local councillor(s) in relation to average levels of representation for the authority as a whole. Under the criteria adopted by the Commission, if either of the following conditions is found to exist, then consideration is given to the need for a review: • Any local authority with a division or ward that has an electoral variance in excess of 30%. This means a division or ward having at least 30% more (or less) electors in it than the average for the authority as a whole; and/or • Any local authority where more than 30% of the divisions or wards have an electoral variance in excess of 10% from the average for that authority. On the basis of the latest data available, our authority appears to meet the selection criteria, with 9 of our 27 wards (33%) having an electoral variance in excess of 10%.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001
    ICPSR 2683 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001 Virginia Sapiro W. Philips Shively Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 4th ICPSR Version February 2004 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu Terms of Use Bibliographic Citation: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Secretariat. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, 1996-2001 [Computer file]. 4th ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004. Request for Information on To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of Use of ICPSR Resources: archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations. Data Disclaimer: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Responsible Use In preparing data for public release, ICPSR performs a number of Statement: procedures to ensure that the identity of research subjects cannot be disclosed. Any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment violates the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Paper Pack for By-Election of Hyde Newton on 5Th
    Nomination Paper Office Use Only No of Nomination Paper Time delivered Date delivered Initials Tameside Metropolitan Borough in order of delivery ELECTION OF A BOROUGH COUNCILLOR for Hyde Newton Date of Election: Thursday 5 February 2009 We the undersigned, being local government electors for the said Ward , do hereby nominate the under-mentioned person as a candidate at the said election. PLEASE COMPLETE IN CAPITALS (except where a signature is required) Candidate’s Other forename(s) Commonly used Commonly used Home Address surname forenames Description (if any) use no more than 6 words surname in full (if any) (if any) in full Title Email Address Telephone Electoral Number Signature Print Name as Signed Polling District Number Letters Proposer Seconder We the undersigned, being local government electors for the said Ward, do hereby assent to the foregoing nomination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Notes 1. The attention of candidates and electors is drawn to the rules for filling up nomination papers and provisions relating to nomination papers contained the election rules in Schedule 2 to the Local Election (Principle Areas) Rules 2006. 2. Where a candidate is commonly known by some title they may be described by their title as if it were their surname. 3. Where a candidate commonly uses a name which is different from any other name they have, the commonly used name may also appear on the nomination paper, but if it does so, the commonly used name (instead of any other name) will appear on the ballot paper. 4. But the ballot paper will show the other name if the Returning Officer thinks that the use of the commonly used name may (a) be likely to mislead or confuse electors, or (b) that the commonly used name is obscene or offensive.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 No. 170 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2005 No. 170 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The County of Lancashire (Electoral Changes) Order 2005 Made - - - - 1st February 2005 Coming into force in accordance with article 1(2) Whereas the Boundary Committee for England(a), acting pursuant to section 15(4) of the Local Government Act 1992(b), has submitted to the Electoral Commission(c) recommendations dated October 2004 on its review of the county of Lancashire: And whereas the Electoral Commission have decided to give effect, with modifications, to those recommendations: And whereas a period of not less than six weeks has expired since the receipt of those recommendations: Now, therefore, the Electoral Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by sections 17(d) and 26(e) of the Local Government Act 1992, and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf, hereby make the following Order: Citation and commencement 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the County of Lancashire (Electoral Changes) Order 2005. (2) This Order shall come into force – (a) for the purpose of proceedings preliminary or relating to any election to be held on the ordinary day of election of councillors in 2005, on the day after that on which it is made; (b) for all other purposes, on the ordinary day of election of councillors in 2005. Interpretation 2. In this Order – (a) The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, established by the Electoral Commission in accordance with section 14 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41). The Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (S.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No.391 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION for ENGLAND
    Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.391 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CBE. DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Rt Hon William Whitelaw, CH MC MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESHIRE 1. The last Order under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the electoral arrangements for the districts in the County of Cheshire was made on 28 September 1978. As required by Section 63 and Schedule 9 of the Act we have now reviewed the electoral arrangements for that county, using the procedures we had set out in our Report No 6. 2. We informed the Cheshire County Council in a consultation letter dated 12 January 1979 that we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copies of the letter to the district councils, parish councils and parish meetings in the county, to the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies concerned, to the headquarters of the main political parties and to the editors both of » local newspapers circulating in the county and of the local government press. Notices in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3» On 1 August 1979 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested 71 electoral divisions for the County, each returning one member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Cheshire and Warrington Labour Market Assessment
    2020 Cheshire and Warrington Labour Market Assessment FINAL BRENNAN WILSON LTD Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 The Cheshire and Warrington Context .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Skills Demand .................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Skills Supply ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Supply and Demand .......................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Skills Strengths and Issues ................................................................................................. 9 2.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 10 3. ANALYSIS AND DEFINITION OF THE LOCAL LANDSCAPE .......................................................... 11 3.1 Population ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Employment, unemployment, and benefits .................................................................... 14 3.3 Jobs, GVA and business
    [Show full text]
  • Central Lancashire Open Space Assessment Report
    CENTRAL LANCASHIRE OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Knight, Kavanagh & Page Ltd Company No: 9145032 (England) MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Registered Office: 1 -2 Frecheville Court, off Knowsley Street, Bury BL9 0UF T: 0161 764 7040 E: [email protected] www.kkp.co.uk Quality assurance Name Date Report origination AL / CD July 2018 Quality control CMF July 2018 Client comments Various Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec 2018 Revised version KKP February 2019 Agreed sign off April 2019 Contents PART 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Report structure ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2 National context ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Local context ........................................................................................................... 3 PART 2: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 4 2.1 Analysis area and population .................................................................................. 4 2.2 Auditing local provision (supply) .............................................................................. 6 2.3 Quality and value .................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Quality and value thresholds ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Tuesday Volume 512 29 June 2010 No. 23 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 29 June 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 697 29 JUNE 2010 698 almost identical to the chances in the rest of Europe. House of Commons Does the Secretary of State therefore believe that a one-year survival indicator is a good idea both for Tuesday 29 June 2010 encouraging early diagnosis and for matching the survival rates of the best in Europe? The House met at half-past Two o’clock Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. When we set out proposals for an outcomes PRAYERS framework, I hope that he and others will respond, because that is one of the ways in which we can best identify how late detection of cancer is leading to very [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] poor levels of survival to one year. I hope that we can think about that as one of the quality indicators that we shall establish. Oral Answers to Questions Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position and wish him well in his role. I understand that he is keeping HEALTH the two-week target for seeing a cancer specialist, but abandoning the work that the Labour Government did on the one-week target for access to diagnostic testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Free School – Opening September 2018 Report on Section 10 Public Consultation 9Th June 2017-8Th September 2017
    Laurus Ryecroft Proposed free school – opening September 2018 Report on Section 10 public consultation th th 9 June 2017-8 September 2017 laurustrust.co.uk 4 October 17 Page 1 of 21 Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 3 The proposer group ............................................................................................................... 4 Initial phase ........................................................................................................................... 4 Statutory consultation ............................................................................................................ 6 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 7 Statutory consultation results and responses ........................................................................ 9 Other responses to the consultation .................................................................................... 18 Conclusion and next steps .................................................................................................. 21 Appendices: Appendix 1 – Section 10 consultation information booklet Appendix 2 – Consultation questionnaire Appendix 3 – Promotional material Appendix 4 – Stakeholders laurustrust.co.uk 4 October 17 Page 2 of 21 Executive summary Laurus Ryecroft is a non-selective, non-denominational 11-18 secondary school in the pre-opening
    [Show full text]
  • Aligned Asset Management Plan - 2007/08 Onwards 12
    Item C3 ALIGNED ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007- 2008 Version Number: 2.0 Page: 1 of 19 Contents Page 1. Foreward 3 2. Introduction 4 3. Joint Asset Management Strategy 5 4. Lancashire County Council’s Asset Management Framework 7 5. Rossendale Borough Council’s Asset Management Framework 10 6. Aligned Asset Management Plan - 2007/08 Onwards 12 7. The Size Of The Property Portfolio 14 8. Performance Of The Property Portfolio 15 Version Number: 2.0 Page: 2 of 19 Foreword Local Government is a large and complicated business, which involves local councils spending very large sums of money to deliver a very wide range of services from a large number of different locations. The nature of the business means that we are large scale owners and managers of land and property assets on behalf of the communities we serve. As local authorities we know we can do better at managing our assets, and we also know that we can do this better if we do it together. This Aligned Asset Management Plan for the Borough of Rossendale has been developed by the Borough and County Councils as part of our shared commitment to improving the way the two tier system of local government works in Lancashire and as the foundation for a developing partnership which will secure improvements in the way we manage our assets and ultimately improve the services we deliver to the communities we serve. We are always seeking to improve what we do, so please let us know what you think of this plan. CCC Anne Brown Councillor Brian Essex Cabinet Member for Resources Portfolio Holder for a Well Managed Council Lancashire County Council Rossendale Borough Council Version Number: 2.0 Page: 3 of 19 Introduction This document has been prepared by Lancashire County Council and Rossendale Borough Council to formalise their aligned asset management agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying for Building Regulations Consent
    work, preferably two days prior to commencing. An officer will arrange to visit and discuss your proposals BUILDING REGULATIONS to determine what inspections are required during Your Local the course of the work. Information Leaflet No.1 COMPLETION OF WORK Building Control When the work is completed (excluding decorating Service and furnishing) you must arrange for a completion inspection by your Building Control Officer. Where the Full Plans procedure has been followed a The Building Control Service is here to Completion Certificate will be issued providing the help, if you are in any doubt over Building work is satisfactory. Regulation requirements or require further information, please telephone or It is strongly recommended that this completion call at your local Building Control Office. certificate is obtained before final payment is made to the contractor. Solicitors may also require a copy Whilst every care has been taken in compiling this of this certificate which confirms that the work has been completed in accordance with the Building information leaflet and the statements contained Regulations. herein the publishers and promoters cannot accept responsibility for any inaccuracies. Building PLANNING PERMISSION Regulations are changed from time to time, if you did not receive this leaflet directly from your Local Applying Planning Permission and Building Regulation Building Control Authority, check with them that the approval are not the same. Building Regulations will information here is still current. often apply when Planning Permission is unnecessary, for Building and vice-versa. You should always check with the For further advice on this subject or any other Development Control Section of the Council to find Building Control matter please contact your Local out if your proposal needs Planning Permission.
    [Show full text]