|
|
Post by froome on Aug 27, 2018 9:54:50 GMT
A bit late to this thread.  There were, of course, extensive coal mines in N.E. Somerset and in Bristol. The N.E. Somerset constituency elected Labour MPS until very recently despite being fairly rural, even though the mines have been closed for at least 50 years, due mainly to this legacy. It is, of course, now represented by Jacob Rees-Mogg. The Bristol mines had two fields, one in the east of the city and one in the south. Tunnels from these are extensive and almost meet directly under Temple Meads station. Frome was Labour 1923-24, 1929-31 and 1945-50 before being abolished. It came within about 900 votes of winning Somerset North in its initial contest in 1950 - Labour candidate was the wonderfully named Xenia Field who also contested Colchester and wrote books on home gardening. Wansdyke was Labour 1997-2010 (the swing in 97 being about 15%). Current Tory majority in NE Somerset, 10,235. And Labour's councillors in B&NES, apart from their one Bath councillor, do still represent the wards at the heart of the old coalfield. I was slightly wrong about the Bristol coalfield tunnels almost meeting. In fact they do meet, and I understand it was possible to walk underground right under the city from east to south. I don't know which platform at Temple Meads they met under, but apparently they are very shallow and in quieter moments, miners who worked there could hear all the activity in the station above them. If one travels just south of Bristol into the true blue territory of eastern B&NES, there is still a wonderful miners welfare institute in the heart of the pretty village of Pensford. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Aug 27, 2018 10:00:10 GMT
A bit late to this thread. There were, of course, extensive coal mines in N.E. Somerset and in Bristol. The N.E. Somerset constituency elected Labour MPS until very recently despite being fairly rural, even though the mines have been closed for at least 50 years, due mainly to this legacy. It is, of course, now represented by Jacob Rees-Mogg. The Bristol mines had two fields, one in the east of the city and one in the south. Tunnels from these are extensive and almost meet directly under Temple Meads station. Hardly in the South-East are they? Geographically no, but these days, the 'south-east' often means in economic terms the M4 corridor, which N.E. Somerset lies closer to than east Kent. And if you look at the 2015 South Somerset thread, there is a little discussion about how parts of east Somerset are now becoming London commuter land (though that doesn't apply to this area, though some of its certainly now Bristol and Bath commuter land). And in many other ways, the Kentish and Somerset coalfields have much in common, small mining villages surrounded by a traditional rural economy whose politics have always been very different. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 27, 2018 10:06:55 GMT
Hardly in the South-East are they? Geographically no, but these days, the 'south-east' often means in economic terms the M4 corridor, which N.E. Somerset lies closer to than east Kent. And if you look at the 2015 South Somerset thread, there is a little discussion about how parts of east Somerset are now becoming London commuter land (though that doesn't apply to this area, though some of its certainly now Bristol and Bath commuter land). And in many other ways, the Kentish and Somerset coalfields have much in common, small mining villages surrounded by a traditional rural economy whose politics have always been very different. Let me attempt to get this quite clear............. You are contending that parts of east Somerset may be considered more of the South East then East Kent? The world is truly now descending into utter madness. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 27, 2018 10:14:43 GMT
A bit late to this thread. There were, of course, extensive coal mines in N.E. Somerset and in Bristol. The N.E. Somerset constituency elected Labour MPS until very recently despite being fairly rural, even though the mines have been closed for at least 50 years, due mainly to this legacy. It is, of course, now represented by Jacob Rees-Mogg. The Bristol mines had two fields, one in the east of the city and one in the south. Tunnels from these are extensive and almost meet directly under Temple Meads station. It came within about 900 votes of winning Somerset North in its initial contest in 1950 - Labour candidate was the wonderfully named Xenia Field who also contested Colchester and wrote books on home gardening. She was old enough to remember Victoria's funeral, but lived to see Blair come to power - dying at the start of 1998 aged 103. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 27, 2018 18:16:51 GMT
Hardly in the South-East are they? Geographically no, but these days, the 'south-east' often means in economic terms the M4 corridor, which N.E. Somerset lies closer to than east Kent. And if you look at the 2015 South Somerset thread, there is a little discussion about how parts of east Somerset are now becoming London commuter land (though that doesn't apply to this area, though some of its certainly now Bristol and Bath commuter land). And in many other ways, the Kentish and Somerset coalfields have much in common, small mining villages surrounded by a traditional rural economy whose politics have always been very different. Banbury is officially in the South East Region. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 27, 2018 21:52:18 GMT
Geographically no, but these days, the 'south-east' often means in economic terms the M4 corridor, which N.E. Somerset lies closer to than east Kent. And if you look at the 2015 South Somerset thread, there is a little discussion about how parts of east Somerset are now becoming London commuter land (though that doesn't apply to this area, though some of its certainly now Bristol and Bath commuter land). And in many other ways, the Kentish and Somerset coalfields have much in common, small mining villages surrounded by a traditional rural economy whose politics have always been very different. Banbury is officially in the South East Region. Banbury is not in, has never been in and could not be in the South East if words are still left with any meaning, despite what witless gormless officials might say. They cannot invent a new truth. Banbury is in the Midlands. Somerset is in the West. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 27, 2018 21:59:14 GMT
Banbury is officially in the South East Region. Banbury is not in, has never been in and could not be in the South Wast if words are still left with any meaning, despite what witless gormless officials might say. They cannot invent a new truth. Banbury is in the Midlands. Somerset is in the West. This reminds me of when I asked my friend Brian (who was from Cork) where his friend Mary was from (In Ireland) - "Oh she's from the west of the west" he said (She was from Mayo). |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 27, 2018 21:59:41 GMT
Banbury is officially in the South East Region. Banbury is not in, has never been in and could not be in the South Wast if words are still left with any meaning, despite what witless gormless officials might say. They cannot invent a new truth. Banbury is in the Midlands. Somerset is in the West. I consider Banbury to be part of the Thames Valley, a separate region in its own right. It certainly should not be in the South East as it is north of London geographically, and the same goes for Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Dorset, and Wiltshire should be in a "South Central" region. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Aug 27, 2018 22:59:15 GMT
Banbury is officially in the South East Region. Banbury is not in, has never been in and could not be in the South East if words are still left with any meaning, despite what witless gormless officials might say. They cannot invent a new truth. Banbury is in the Midlands. Somerset is in the West. The problem is that Banbury is in Oxfordshire and the usual thing to do is to allocate the whole of a county to the same region. It doesn't always work too well as we've discussed before. For example Derby is definitely in the Midlands but Chesterfield is arguably in the north despite also being in Derbyshire. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 28, 2018 7:38:16 GMT
Isn't Milton Keynes also in the south-east? I think it's the whole geographical counties of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Bucks, i.e the the Thames Valley region, which is regarded by officialdom quite mistakenly in my view as appropriate to put in South East England, making it grossly oversized.
I don't think South-central England (Wilts, Hants and the IOW) should be there either, but that's a lesser crime against reason.
Back to the original theme, I remember Pensford with the view dominated by winding gear and spoil heaps. I hesitate over the words pretty village. Radstock and Midsummer Norton were mining communities through and through. I absolutely endorse the comparison between these areas and the Kent coalfield area behind Deal. Yes they had much in common and in my youth they were both areas I knew very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Aug 28, 2018 9:39:25 GMT
Banbury is not in, has never been in and could not be in the South East if words are still left with any meaning, despite what witless gormless officials might say. They cannot invent a new truth. Banbury is in the Midlands. Somerset is in the West. The problem is that Banbury is in Oxfordshire and the usual thing to do is to allocate the whole of a county to the same region. It doesn't always work too well as we've discussed before. For example Derby is definitely in the Midlands but Chesterfield is arguably in the north despite also being in Derbyshire. Derbyshire is the exemplar of needing to be in different regions... There is no way that Glossop should be in anything other than the North-West. Chesterfield should be in the same region as Sheffield. Derby is obviously in the East Midlands with Nottingham and Leicester. There is even an argument that could be made that those parts of Derbyshire south of the Trent (Swadlincote etc.) should be in the West Midlands. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 28, 2018 9:43:16 GMT
The problem is that Banbury is in Oxfordshire and the usual thing to do is to allocate the whole of a county to the same region. It doesn't always work too well as we've discussed before. For example Derby is definitely in the Midlands but Chesterfield is arguably in the north despite also being in Derbyshire. Derbyshire is the exemplar of needing to be in different regions... There is no way that Glossop should be in anything other than the North-West. Chesterfield should be in the same region as Sheffield. Derby is obviously in the East Midlands with Nottingham and Leicester. There is even an argument that could be made that those parts of Derbyshire south of the Trent (Swadlincote etc.) should be in the West Midlands. Why bother with regions at all? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 28, 2018 9:48:28 GMT
Derbyshire is the exemplar of needing to be in different regions... There is no way that Glossop should be in anything other than the North-West. Chesterfield should be in the same region as Sheffield. Derby is obviously in the East Midlands with Nottingham and Leicester. There is even an argument that could be made that those parts of Derbyshire south of the Trent (Swadlincote etc.) should be in the West Midlands. Why bother with regions at all? Since England unified such a long time ago compared to most other European countries, attempts to create regions always hit problems. A return to Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland etc may make things easier. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 28, 2018 9:57:49 GMT
Why bother with regions at all? Since England unified such a long time ago compared to most other European countries, attempts to create regions always hit problems. A return to Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland etc may make things easier. With Parish Councils, Town Councils, District Councils, Unitary Authorities, County Councils, a HOC in Westminster what on earth can be the possible function of Regions as well? The North-East and the North-West when combined seem a bit small for a 'Region' let alone being separate. The whole thing is deeply silly. In fact most of life is increasingly very silly. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 28, 2018 10:02:33 GMT
Since England unified such a long time ago compared to most other European countries, attempts to create regions always hit problems. A return to Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland etc may make things easier. With Parish Councils, Town Councils, District Councils, Unitary Authorities, County Councils, a HOC in Westminster what on earth can be the possible function of Regions as well? The North-East and the North-West when combined seem a bit small for a 'Region' let alone being separate. The whole thing is deeply silly. In fact most of life is increasingly very silly. People like the idea in theory, but can't agree when it comes to defining the areas or the powers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 10:05:11 GMT
Why bother with regions at all? Since England unified such a long time ago compared to most other European countries, attempts to create regions always hit problems. A return to Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland etc may make things easier. At what date?  |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 28, 2018 10:44:39 GMT
Geographically no, but these days, the 'south-east' often means in economic terms the M4 corridor, which N.E. Somerset lies closer to than east Kent. And if you look at the 2015 South Somerset thread, there is a little discussion about how parts of east Somerset are now becoming London commuter land (though that doesn't apply to this area, though some of its certainly now Bristol and Bath commuter land). And in many other ways, the Kentish and Somerset coalfields have much in common, small mining villages surrounded by a traditional rural economy whose politics have always been very different. Let me attempt to get this quite clear............. You are contending that parts of east Somerset may be considered more of the South East then East Kent? The world is truly now descending into utter madness. I'm now leaning towards the idea of East Kent being part of France.  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 28, 2018 11:00:23 GMT
Since England unified such a long time ago compared to most other European countries, attempts to create regions always hit problems. A return to Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland etc may make things easier. At what date? 757? But we are still straying Offa topic. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 28, 2018 11:43:22 GMT
Let me attempt to get this quite clear............. You are contending that parts of east Somerset may be considered more of the South East then East Kent? The world is truly now descending into utter madness. I'm now leaning towards the idea of East Kent being part of France. That could have been all the more so if Ashford International had lived up to its name and had a really good train service to the Continent. The Government and train company are to be castigated for failure to attend to the needs of anywhere except London. Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford sorely neglected just so as to take a few minutes off the travel time for bloody Metropolitans going to Brussels. And the rest of Britain entirely neglected with the sleeper stock never used and all to give London a better service and damn the rest of us to not having a service at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Aug 28, 2018 13:46:18 GMT
Why bother with regions at all? Since England unified such a long time ago compared to most other European countries, attempts to create regions always hit problems. A return to Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland etc may make things easier. I like the fact that St Albans was in Mercia and Tamworth was the capital city. |
|
