|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Dec 20, 2023 12:36:47 GMT
Worth remembering that recall petitions were introduced by a Conservative Government and some of its main proponents were Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith before people label the system as a far Left conspiracy. Unsurprising, both first class Libertarian tossers. Goldsmith is definitely not a libertarian. He's not especially pro-business. Carswell is a libertarian |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,963 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 20, 2023 12:39:45 GMT
Oh I do hope so very much indeed. I hope he wins but if not that he beats those two out of sight.I'm intrigued: I get why you support Bone, and all your antipathy to the current Conservative Party . What is your objection to Reform? Previously you have spoken quite warmly of Farage, who is its eminence gris. I posted with intemperance yesterday and have consequently re-written a few posts and deleted two altogether. I am no longer a supporter of the Conservative Party or of Farage. I was never a very convinced Reform supporter and am unsure what exactly that party does support now. Reclaim suited me but was never going anywhere and was a one-man-band with all the difficulties that can pose. I am distanced from politics and effectively homeless as such. I need a british form of AfD to be really a bit more happy. I am not expecting anything to shift my way in the time left to me. I know insufficient about the Bone case to make a judgement, but suppose him to have been fitted up by elements who do that sort of thing, either as part of a political 'sting' or a financial one. There must be something behind the allegations for all this to have happened, but I don't imagine it amounts to 'a hill of beans'! My liking of Bone has not been enhanced by the revelations, such as they are. My gripe is with the Recall Act but even more with the toxic and acidic turn of mind that would ever contemplate such an idea. The election cycle is quite good enough. Take care whom one selects and votes for in first instance. The HOC has the power to expel serious miscreants and that should be good enough. We expect far too much of representatives these days. They are human beings with all the baggage most of us have in rudeness, slackness, incompetence, odd habits, nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct and things better not said : Because they are Human! It was always thus but earlier we often didn't know. The media was less of a muck-raking, intrusive toad upon us all. This act is made to satisfy malcontents and malign little people who are tribal in their opposition and drool over the prospect of a by-election and doing-down the other side. They love to see an MP brought low and humiliated, with life, career, marriage and assets stripped and destroyed. It panders to the worst elements in society and rights no wrongs and does no good at all. It just reinforces the general view that all MPs are no good and doing bad things. It is a wholly bad idea with a trigger point that is absurdly low. Nothing would convince me to tolerate such an act let alone support it; but in the meantime a trigger of at least 33% should be in place. If not even a third of the electorate can be bothered to sign a simple petition, then there is NO demand amonst them for a removal is there? |
|
Yaffles
Non-Aligned
Posts: 524
Member is Online
|
Post by Yaffles on Dec 20, 2023 12:43:22 GMT
But Labour does have history in the seat - having held it 1997 - 2005 when narrowly lost - also 1964 - December 1969 -and 1945 - 1959. This is not at all like Mid Bedfordshire. Does the seat have more or less of a rural hinterland than back then? Looking at this map of 1918-1950 seats www.parlconst.org/constituency-maps/england/1918 it looks remarkably similar. |
|
Yaffles
Non-Aligned
Posts: 524
Member is Online
|
Post by Yaffles on Dec 20, 2023 12:52:39 GMT
In fact the only time the seat looked significantly different was between 1974 and 1983 when it included East Northamptonshire. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Dec 20, 2023 12:54:57 GMT
But Labour does have history in the seat - having held it 1997 - 2005 when narrowly lost - also 1964 - December 1969 -and 1945 - 1959. This is not at all like Mid Bedfordshire. Does the seat have more or less of a rural hinterland than back then? It's hard to say. The Wellingborough constituency was historically larger than it is now, but most of the territory it has lost over the years consisted of small towns rather than genuinely rural areas. The original Wellingborough (as created in 1918) included all of the current seat as well as Earls Barton, Raunds, and Irthlingborough. This remained the situation until 1974 when a genuinely rural area was added - East Northamptonshire around Thrapston and Raunds. Then in 1983, the creation of a Corby constituency meant that this area was lost, as well as the more long standing territory around Raunds and Irthlingborough. Finally, in 2010 Earls Barton left the seat. Other than the 1974-1983 boundaries (which would have been a fair bit more favourable for the Conservatives), most of these changes aren't likely to have shifted the seat's behaviour that much. Earls Barton, Irthlingborough, and Raunds are fairly typical Northamptonshire small towns and all have traditionally been quite marginal politically. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 20, 2023 13:14:48 GMT
I'm intrigued: I get why you support Bone, and all your antipathy to the current Conservative Party . What is your objection to Reform? Previously you have spoken quite warmly of Farage, who is its eminence gris. I posted with intemperance yesterday and have consequently re-written a few posts and deleted two altogether. I am no longer a supporter of the Conservative Party or of Farage. I was never a very convinced Reform supporter and am unsure what exactly that party does support now. Reclaim suited me but was never going anywhere and was a one-man-band with all the difficulties that can pose. I am distanced from politics and effectively homeless as such. I need a british form of AfD to be really a bit more happy. I am not expecting anything to shift my way in the time left to me. I know insufficient about the Bone case to make a judgement, but suppose him to have been fitted up by elements who do that sort of thing, either as part of a political 'sting' or a financial one. There must be something behind the allegations for all this to have happened, but I don't imagine it amounts to 'a hill of beans'! My liking of Bone has not been enhanced by the revelations, such as they are. My gripe is with the Recall Act but even more with the toxic and acidic turn of mind that would ever contemplate such an idea. The election cycle is quite good enough. Take care whom one selects and votes for in first instance. The HOC has the power to expel serious miscreants and that should be good enough. We expect far too much of representatives these days. They are human beings with all the baggage most of us have in rudeness, slackness, incompetence, odd habits, nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct and things better not said : Because they are Human! It was always thus but earlier we often didn't know. The media was less of a muck-raking, intrusive toad upon us all. This act is made to satisfy malcontents and malign little people who are tribal in their opposition and drool over the prospect of a by-election and doing-down the other side. They love to see an MP brought low and humiliated, with life, career, marriage and assets stripped and destroyed. It panders to the worst elements in society and rights no wrongs and does no good at all. It just reinforces the general view that all MPs are no good and doing bad things. It is a wholly bad idea with a trigger point that is absurdly low. Nothing would convince me to tolerate such an act let alone support it; but in the meantime a trigger of at least 33% should be in place. If not even a third of the electorate can be bothered to sign a simple petition, then there is NO demand amonst them for a removal is there? I'm grateful to carlton43 for this exposition because I too was struggling to understand his position. But I'm afraid I'm still slightly confused because in this post, especially in the sentences in bold, he seems to be taking a highly forgiving view of the various frailties and weaknesses to which the human condition is subject - and he has said similar in many other posts. Yet, at the same time, in other threads he has come across as anything but forgiving, in fact actively censorious, of precisely the same flaws when exhibited by the population in general, and he has called for firm government action to prevent us from engaging in overeating, recreational drugs, too much sex and similar 'nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct' to use his words above. So: which carlton43 is it to be? The genial, forgiving version that views human weakness with a tolerant and indulgent eye; or the stern moralist that engages the coercive power of the state to save us all from our own folly?
Or are these two positions somehow reconcilable, in a manner that I confess eludes me?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,958
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 20, 2023 13:28:12 GMT
Leaving aside the precise threshold, Bone's argument is that far more people didn't sign, which he takes as an endorsement. The latter us a non-sequitur, but you could introduce a control whereby which people could actively vote against recall, and require the petition to not only surpass 10% but also to exceed the vote against recall. That is the system I would prefer. If an elector doesn’t want the MP to be recalled, or if he thinks that the offence was so trivial that it doesn’t deserve disqualification, there is no opportunity to say so by voting against recall. If one leaves aside what one thinks about Bone or the SNP or whatever, I would not have wanted to recall either this one or the recent one in Scotland. The thing about breaking Covid regulations was too trivial (especially 2 or 3 years after the event) that it didn’t deserve a by-election or an unseating of the MP. The way the system currently works is that a recall petition is likely to succeed or fail depending on the organisation ability of the opposition parties locally, and the unpopularity of the MP generally, rather than the merits or the seriousness of the individual case against the MP. It’s a bit like having a referendum: “Do You Want a By-Election?” With only a “Yes” option. People who generally view Covid offences as "trivial" would very likely have done the same with Ferrier's misdemeanour - however, this was and is not the majority position amongst public opinion on the whole. The fact the byelection came so long after the offence had a lot to do with her own stonewalling, this should surely not be encouraged. I admit that I was not massively enthusiastic about the recall idea, partly for reasons already set out on this thread - but I was willing to give it a chance, and it has to be said that (unlike several parts of our political system currently) it has on the whole worked quite well. I note the comments that 10% is too low a threshold and "easy" to achieve - back when this was debated the opposite was if anything the case and many thought a 10% figure would rarely if ever be achieved in practice. IIRC there were suggestions it should actually be 12.5% (the old deposit saving number) but this would have made no difference in practice so far, with only North Antrim failing to meet the cut just as in our actual timeline. IMO however, 20% is definitely too high - and subject to similar claims of "political interference" (even if in the other direction) that are being made currently. And in the future we will surely see somebody being recalled, but standing again (under their previous party label) and winning. The fact this has not happened yet does rather suggest that the recalls so far were pretty justified. And at least one MP has escaped a fully deserved recall through a (now shut) loophole. This currently ain't broke so don't fix it, is my opinion. It might serve as a deterrent to bad behaviour in the future, too. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,963
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 20, 2023 13:33:43 GMT
I posted with intemperance yesterday and have consequently re-written a few posts and deleted two altogether. I am no longer a supporter of the Conservative Party or of Farage. I was never a very convinced Reform supporter and am unsure what exactly that party does support now. Reclaim suited me but was never going anywhere and was a one-man-band with all the difficulties that can pose. I am distanced from politics and effectively homeless as such. I need a british form of AfD to be really a bit more happy. I am not expecting anything to shift my way in the time left to me. I know insufficient about the Bone case to make a judgement, but suppose him to have been fitted up by elements who do that sort of thing, either as part of a political 'sting' or a financial one. There must be something behind the allegations for all this to have happened, but I don't imagine it amounts to 'a hill of beans'! My liking of Bone has not been enhanced by the revelations, such as they are. My gripe is with the Recall Act but even more with the toxic and acidic turn of mind that would ever contemplate such an idea. The election cycle is quite good enough. Take care whom one selects and votes for in first instance. The HOC has the power to expel serious miscreants and that should be good enough. We expect far too much of representatives these days. They are human beings with all the baggage most of us have in rudeness, slackness, incompetence, odd habits, nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct and things better not said : Because they are Human! It was always thus but earlier we often didn't know. The media was less of a muck-raking, intrusive toad upon us all. This act is made to satisfy malcontents and malign little people who are tribal in their opposition and drool over the prospect of a by-election and doing-down the other side. They love to see an MP brought low and humiliated, with life, career, marriage and assets stripped and destroyed. It panders to the worst elements in society and rights no wrongs and does no good at all. It just reinforces the general view that all MPs are no good and doing bad things. It is a wholly bad idea with a trigger point that is absurdly low. Nothing would convince me to tolerate such an act let alone support it; but in the meantime a trigger of at least 33% should be in place. If not even a third of the electorate can be bothered to sign a simple petition, then there is NO demand amonst them for a removal is there? I'm grateful to carlton43 for this exposition because I too was struggling to understand his position. But I'm afraid I'm still slightly confused because in this post, especially in the sentences in bold, he seems to be taking a highly forgiving view of the various frailties and weaknesses to which the human condition is subject - and he has said similar in many other posts. Yet, at the same time, in other threads he has come across as anything but forgiving, in fact actively censorious, of precisely the same flaws when exhibited by the population in general, and he has called for firm government action to prevent us from engaging in overeating, recreational drugs, too much sex and similar 'nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct' to use his words above. So: which carlton43 is it to be? The genial, forgiving version that views human weakness with a tolerant and indulgent eye; or the stern moralist that engages the coercive power of the state to save us all from our own folly?
Or are these two positions somehow reconcilable, in a manner that I confess eludes me?
Thank you for the courtesy and indeed the interest in my reasoning. The British do have a problem with my type of view of society. I am censorious and I do wish to encourage better lifestyles and better behaviour. But I know that most of us will at times slip up and look foolish, venal or not very pleasant. That will have consequences. The more who know the worse it will be. Thus I liked the old style cover-ups and suppression of knowing about much of that human failing. If it is seriously criminal it must come out and be exposed. I have never worried at all about hypocrisy. I see it in the same way as I see lying. Both are necessary to rubbing along together. A priest or MP or GP may sensibly call for certain practices to cease and for us to embrace others as well : Yet in their own lives those priests may occasionally sin, MPs behave badly and inadvisedly; and GPs continue to smoke, drink heavily and take no exercise. That does not undermine the good advice and the values of the strictures at all. It merely shows that they are human and failing themselves and failing to take their own perfectly good advice. None of that worries me at all. I can carry the two positions in my head with equanimity. It is very un-British of me I know. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,914
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Dec 20, 2023 13:43:51 GMT
Worth remembering that recall petitions were introduced by a Conservative Government and some of its main proponents were Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith before people label the system as a far Left conspiracy. I had the impression that the original idea pushed by some people was more like the Californian (for example) system, where it would be possible to set up a recall petition against any MP, without a particular defined set of triggers, and that if enough people (presumably quite a high threshold) signed it then there would be a by-election. Whereas what we actually have ended up with is a rather cumbersome way of getting public input to the process of getting MPs who have broken certain rules sacked. |
|
mrtoad
Labour
He is a toad. Who knows what a toad thinks?
Posts: 424
|
Post by mrtoad on Dec 20, 2023 13:45:53 GMT
I admit that I was not massively enthusiastic about the recall idea, partly for reasons already set out on this thread - but I was willing to give it a chance, and it has to be said that (unlike several parts of our political system currently) it has on the whole worked quite well. I note the comments that 10% is too low a threshold and "easy" to achieve - back when this was debated the opposite was if anything the case and many thought a 10% figure would rarely if ever be achieved in practice. IIRC there were suggestions it should actually be 12.5% (the old deposit saving number) but this would have made no difference in practice so far, with only North Antrim failing to meet the cut just as in our actual timeline. IMO however, 20% is definitely too high - and subject to similar claims of "political interference" (even if in the other direction) that are being made currently. And in the future we will surely see somebody being recalled, but standing again (under their previous party label) and winning. The fact this has not happened so far does rather suggest that the recalls so far were pretty justified. And at least one MP has escaped a fully deserved recall through a (now shut) loophole. This currently ain't broke so don't fix it, is my opinion. It might serve as a deterrent to bad behaviour in the future, too. I agree with this. I didn't like the proposed recall system at all (though it was still better than the idea of allowing recall in general without the requirement for an MP to have been judged guilty of misconduct); I feared it might actually lead to a diminution in the willingness of the Privileges Committee to punish misconduct. I was wrong - in combination with more aggressive policing from the Committee it has worked well. The House had been reluctant to expel members since the 1947 Allighan episode, even for severe misconduct, and other than Cordle in 1977 there aren't many instances of informal expulsion either. The recall system gives a way of nearly expelling a member, although with the safeguard of allowing electors a say through the petition and the ability of the MP to stand again (as happened in Brecon & Radnorshire). |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,635
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Dec 20, 2023 13:52:08 GMT
I think the current process is the worst of all worlds. If a MP is deemed worthy of being sacked then they should be sacked. Getting 10% of voters to sign something to get rid of an MP is likely to happen in nearly every constituency and in the places where it wouldn’t be possible, that would more likely be because of overwhelming support for the party of the MP ( in eg Liverpool) rather than any reflection of the offence.
If we must have the system and we are truly judging whether the electorate wants to remove the MP, then I agree with others, that there must also be an option to sign to say ‘ I don’t want the MP recalled’ and the two figures must both be taken account in the trigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 20, 2023 13:54:27 GMT
If a successful recall petition just meant that the naughty MP was replaced by another person from the same party (from a list previously submitted), I wonder how many people would bother to sign the petition. It seems most people are signing on the basis of possible party political gains rather than an objective assessment of what the MP did or didn't do.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,958
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 20, 2023 13:56:24 GMT
Though that actually happened in Peterborough, and could easily do so in the future (maybe even in Wellingborough) I doubt if it will put many off the wider concept, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 20, 2023 14:22:12 GMT
Though that actually happened in Peterborough, and could easily do so in the future (maybe even in Wellingborough) I doubt if it will put many off the wider concept, though. But in Peterborough many Conservative supporters thought they could win the resulting by-election, even if they didn't in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Dec 20, 2023 14:40:29 GMT
The House is reluctant to censure its own because of the retention of the "old boy's club" attitude it has. The expenses scandal brought down a lot of the edifice which led to Recall, and we can't remove the Brexit referendum as an instance of the "elite" getting punished by the electorate.
Recall has been successful in giving back power from Westminster to voters and I'm wary of the drawbridge being put back again. If Peter Bone feels that both the Report and the consequences are wrong, he can stand again. That's democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 20, 2023 15:02:06 GMT
I'm grateful to carlton43 for this exposition because I too was struggling to understand his position. But I'm afraid I'm still slightly confused because in this post, especially in the sentences in bold, he seems to be taking a highly forgiving view of the various frailties and weaknesses to which the human condition is subject - and he has said similar in many other posts. Yet, at the same time, in other threads he has come across as anything but forgiving, in fact actively censorious, of precisely the same flaws when exhibited by the population in general, and he has called for firm government action to prevent us from engaging in overeating, recreational drugs, too much sex and similar 'nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct' to use his words above. So: which carlton43 is it to be? The genial, forgiving version that views human weakness with a tolerant and indulgent eye; or the stern moralist that engages the coercive power of the state to save us all from our own folly?
Or are these two positions somehow reconcilable, in a manner that I confess eludes me?
Thank you for the courtesy and indeed the interest in my reasoning. The British do have a problem with my type of view of society. I am censorious and I do wish to encourage better lifestyles and better behaviour. But I know that most of us will at times slip up and look foolish, venal or not very pleasant. That will have consequences. The more who know the worse it will be. Thus I liked the old style cover-ups and suppression of knowing about much of that human failing. If it is seriously criminal it must come out and be exposed. I have never worried at all about hypocrisy. I see it in the same way as I see lying. Both are necessary to rubbing along together. A priest or MP or GP may sensibly call for certain practices to cease and for us to embrace others as well : Yet in their own lives those priests may occasionally sin, MPs behave badly and inadvisedly; and GPs continue to smoke, drink heavily and take no exercise. That does not undermine the good advice and the values of the strictures at all. It merely shows that they are human and failing themselves and failing to take their own perfectly good advice. None of that worries me at all. I can carry the two positions in my head with equanimity. It is very un-British of me I know. Well, I must respectfully disagree with the words in bold.
If a doctor, or politician, or priest wants to tell me what I may eat or drink, how I should conduct my business, what I may get up to between the sheets and with whom, then fair enough. But this person should damn well be complying with the same standards in his or her own life - and if not, then these sanctimonious strictures are no more than humbug and cant and in that case, I'd like to know about it.
The exposure of hypocrisy in public life is one of the noblest callings of a free press and it goes far to extenuate the excesses in which the media sometimes indulge.
To say nothing of the stern joy one feels when some public person of a moralizing bent is exposed as a liar and a cheat. Jimmy Swaggart and Iris Robinson are two particularly gratifying examples that spring to mind. Indeed, when Iris Robinson's sexual and financial transgressions came to light I recall asking my wife to pinch me because it seemed too good to be true.
Would you deny me this simple pleasure?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 20, 2023 15:20:02 GMT
Worth remembering that recall petitions were introduced by a Conservative Government and some of its main proponents were Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith before people label the system as a far Left conspiracy. And they were part of the "power back to the people, end the Westminster power grab" brigade, the 'anti elite' thread running through Brexit supporters. UKIP once supported proportional representation, on the same terms. I think UKIP still does support PR. It supported FPTP for many years before it switched to supporting PR. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 20, 2023 15:26:14 GMT
And they were part of the "power back to the people, end the Westminster power grab" brigade, the 'anti elite' thread running through Brexit supporters. UKIP once supported proportional representation, on the same terms. I think UKIP still does support PR. It supported FPTP for many years before it switched to supporting PR. No doubt in furtherance of closer alignment with Europe. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,963
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 20, 2023 15:46:41 GMT
Thank you for the courtesy and indeed the interest in my reasoning. The British do have a problem with my type of view of society. I am censorious and I do wish to encourage better lifestyles and better behaviour. But I know that most of us will at times slip up and look foolish, venal or not very pleasant. That will have consequences. The more who know the worse it will be. Thus I liked the old style cover-ups and suppression of knowing about much of that human failing. If it is seriously criminal it must come out and be exposed. I have never worried at all about hypocrisy. I see it in the same way as I see lying. Both are necessary to rubbing along together. A priest or MP or GP may sensibly call for certain practices to cease and for us to embrace others as well : Yet in their own lives those priests may occasionally sin, MPs behave badly and inadvisedly; and GPs continue to smoke, drink heavily and take no exercise. That does not undermine the good advice and the values of the strictures at all. It merely shows that they are human and failing themselves and failing to take their own perfectly good advice. None of that worries me at all. I can carry the two positions in my head with equanimity. It is very un-British of me I know. Well, I must respectfully disagree with the words in bold.
If a doctor, or politician, or priest wants to tell me what I may eat or drink, how I should conduct my business, what I may get up to between the sheets and with whom, then fair enough. But this person should damn well be complying with the same standards in his or her own life - and if not, then these sanctimonious strictures are no more than humbug and cant and in that case, I'd like to know about it.
The exposure of hypocrisy in public life is one of the noblest callings of a free press and it goes far to extenuate the excesses in which the media sometimes indulge.
To say nothing of the stern joy one feels when some public person of a moralizing bent is exposed as a liar and a cheat. Jimmy Swaggart and Iris Robinson are two particularly gratifying examples that spring to mind. Indeed, when Iris Robinson's sexual and financial transgressions came to light I recall asking my wife to pinch me because it seemed too good to be true.
Would you deny me this simple pleasure?
And, Oh! How well you express that very British attitude. I am sure it is a majority position on this Forum as well. And, Yes. I would tend to deny you that simple pleasure because it comes from the wrong part of your heart or soul. I could not give a puff-of-air about hypocrisy and have long wondered why it ranks so high in Britain. I think it must come from the joy at seeing people that tend to cause a feeling of guilt or inadequacy brought low within the very areas they have moralized about. It also interests me that my own reactions are so very different from that of so many of my peers. But the argument that you advance so vehemently that moral strictures and sound advice are miraculously transformed into 'cant and humbug' merely because the advisor/moralizer fails to live up to their own precepts, is to me quite obviously wildly absurd. I can fully accept the rejection outright of the advice and the moralizing, but the act of transgression by the advisor/moralizer is immaterial to the facts and the value (or lack of value) in such strictures and advice. It is sound and acceptable or it is not. The value of it is quite independent of the conduct of the messenger. I place zero value on hypocrisy but take a dim view of those who cannot see the divide between the message conveyed and the conduct of said messenger. Now that is worthy of my censure but the hypocrisy is not. How is it that we have such a different view? My Father would have liked my position and the fact I was making it in the face of opposition but might not have been fully on my side. My Mother would have been 100% with you and given me a dressing down over it. These views like all of my views are my own and come by after much thought and self reflection. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 20, 2023 15:49:38 GMT
Does the seat have more or less of a rural hinterland than back then? It's hard to say. The Wellingborough constituency was historically larger than it is now, but most of the territory it has lost over the years consisted of small towns rather than genuinely rural areas. The original Wellingborough (as created in 1918) included all of the current seat as well as Earls Barton, Raunds, and Irthlingborough. This remained the situation until 1974 when a genuinely rural area was added - East Northamptonshire around Thrapston and Raunds. Then in 1983, the creation of a Corby constituency meant that this area was lost, as well as the more long standing territory around Raunds and Irthlingborough. Finally, in 2010 Earls Barton left the seat. Other than the 1974-1983 boundaries (which would have been a fair bit more favourable for the Conservatives), most of these changes aren't likely to have shifted the seat's behaviour that much. Earls Barton, Irthlingborough, and Raunds are fairly typical Northamptonshire small towns and all have traditionally been quite marginal politically. Interesting. I suppose in the immediate postwar period the seat would have had some agricultural labourers which would have helped the Labour vote. Where do people in Wellingborough tend to work or commute to? Is it quite self sufficient or do people tend to drive to Northampton or Leicester for work? |
|
