The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
-
- Posts: 14122
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
Had a look on the website and Darlo's boundaries are changing. The constituency of Darlington will now include all the rural villages that form the Darlington Borough Council current area. Bet our MP isn't too happy, as at best it's a very marginal seat for Labour to hold on too.
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
Darlo_Pete wrote:Had a look on the website and Darlo's boundaries are changing. The constituency of Darlington will now include all the rural villages that form the Darlington Borough Council current area. Bet our MP isn't too happy, as at best it's a very marginal seat for Labour to hold on too.
-
- Posts: 14122
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.
-
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
- Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
It's been engineered to boost the tory majority... democracy at its finest (I'm not a hardcore labour voter)Darlo_Pete wrote:Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
I hadn't realised they weren't included before how small was the Darlington constituency before, must have been pretty tiny.Darlo_Pete wrote:Had a look on the website and Darlo's boundaries are changing. The constituency of Darlington will now include all the rural villages that form the Darlington Borough Council current area.
I'd be surprised if we were hitting the 75,000 of eligible voters across DBC.
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
You are talking complete and utter bollocks.SwansQuaker83 wrote:It's been engineered to boost the tory majority... democracy at its finest (I'm not a hardcore labour voter)Darlo_Pete wrote:Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.
-
- Posts: 14122
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
The Boundary Commission has no political ties. The fact is that lots of Northern constituencies are based around small towns and unfortunately for Labour the vast majority are labour held. In the South were populations are growing, towns are getting bigger and the constituencies too large. Fortunately for the Tories the vast majority of these areas are Conservative.SwansQuaker83 wrote:It's been engineered to boost the tory majority... democracy at its finest (I'm not a hardcore labour voter)Darlo_Pete wrote:Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
The other problem for labour is as the constituencies get larger they start to take in more of the more conservative folk from the surrounding villages.
In my opinion regardless of boundary changes until Labour dislodge SNP from Scotland they don't have a chance of being elected with a majority anyway. The more even the constituencies the better ultimately.
Does anyone know why there is an even number of constituencies - to me that creates an unnecessary risk of an election being split 50:50.
If you have 600 seats in theory the 2 main parties could get 300 each and then where do you go? At least with 601 there would be a deciding vote. I know it's unlikely and people will say with 601 you could have 300 each plus 1 for a third party - but that means the coalition can produce the majority.
In my opinion regardless of boundary changes until Labour dislodge SNP from Scotland they don't have a chance of being elected with a majority anyway. The more even the constituencies the better ultimately.
Does anyone know why there is an even number of constituencies - to me that creates an unnecessary risk of an election being split 50:50.
If you have 600 seats in theory the 2 main parties could get 300 each and then where do you go? At least with 601 there would be a deciding vote. I know it's unlikely and people will say with 601 you could have 300 each plus 1 for a third party - but that means the coalition can produce the majority.
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
I don't think The Speaker is allowed a vote so if everyone turns up for a vote it is an uneven number.
DB
DB
-
- Posts: 14122
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
You'd think with our population growing pretty steadily the number of constituencies would be growing, rather then declining.
- THE PRINCE OF WALES
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:38 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Northallerton
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
Pete,
the villages of Manfield,Aldborough St John and West and East Layton are under Richmond ward has this been always been the case ?
the villages of Manfield,Aldborough St John and West and East Layton are under Richmond ward has this been always been the case ?
-
- Posts: 14122
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
Naturally villages South of the Tess are in Yorkshire and so would come under the Richmond constituency.
Re: The new proposed parliamentary boundary changes.
Well maybe if you judge the outcome/impact of something based on a single factor.Darlo_Pete wrote:You'd think with our population growing pretty steadily the number of constituencies would be growing, rather then declining.