These proposals taken together are a significant improvement. The issue now is the name of the Gateshead West constituency. I believe that Whickham should be included, so my submission to the Boundary Commission's consultation made a case for this. It is a view not universally held: when it was discussed at a Gateshead Council advisory group, Labour Leader Martin Gannon dismissed the proposal to include Whickham with the words, "Not on your life!"
Anyway, here is my submission to the Boundary Commission consultation:
The
proposed Gateshead West constituency covers a logical and sensible geographic
area and avoids communities being split. However the name could be potentially
misleading. A further 5 wards of Gateshead Council to the west of the Gateshead
West constituency will be in the revised Blaydon constituency. It is therefore
not an accurate description. The name of Gateshead on its own has significant
historical recognition in terms of the old Gateshead town forming the eastern
part of the new constituency.
Furthermore,
Whickham is the 2nd biggest town in the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead, beaten
only by the town of Gateshead itself. The name "Whickham" appears in
three of the 22 wards in Gateshead.
The
only other town in Gateshead to appear in the name of more that one ward is
Dunston which appears in two (Dunston Hill and Whickham East ward and Dunston
and Teams ward). Dunston historically is part of Whickham. The historic area of
Whickham will therefore constitute nearly 40% of the constituency.
I
therefore propose that instead of "Gateshead West", which could be
confusing to many, the name of the new constituency should be "Gateshead
and Whickham".
No comments:
Post a Comment