Darlo Uncovered

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.

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.

Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.

Darlo_Pete wrote:Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.

It's been engineered to boost the tory majority... democracy at its finest (I'm not a hardcore labour voter)

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 hadn't realised they weren't included before how small was the Darlington constituency before, must have been pretty tiny.

I'd be surprised if we were hitting the 75,000 of eligible voters across DBC.

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.

It's been engineered to boost the tory majority... democracy at its finest (I'm not a hardcore labour voter)

You are talking complete and utter bollocks.

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:Not surprisingly I guess, but a good few Labour MP's aren't very happy with the proposed changes.

It's been engineered to boost the tory majority... democracy at its finest (I'm not a hardcore labour voter)

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.

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.

I don't think The Speaker is allowed a vote so if everyone turns up for a vote it is an uneven number.

DB

You'd think with our population growing pretty steadily the number of constituencies would be growing, rather then declining.

Pete,
the villages of Manfield,Aldborough St John and West and East Layton are under Richmond ward has this been always been the case ?

Naturally villages South of the Tess are in Yorkshire and so would come under the Richmond constituency.

Darlo_Pete wrote:You'd think with our population growing pretty steadily the number of constituencies would be growing, rather then declining.

Well maybe if you judge the outcome/impact of something based on a single factor.