Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: wheels on September 13, 2016, 11:29:31 AM
-
I was wondering if there are any views here on the BC proposals for a Marple and Hyde Parliamentary Constituency?
-
Map available here:
http://www.bce2018.org.uk/
It does take a little manipulation to see the changes.
Understand the reasoning behind the need for change but does seem to lump quite unrelated areas together which will cross council boundaries
-
I don't thing Marple and Hazel Grove have much in common, but at least there isn't a mountain range between them, as there is between Marple and Hyde!
I think the whole idea of reducing the number of MPs is bound to produce even more illogical constituencies than we already have. Ideally, we actually need more MPs, not fewer, to enable constituencies to be drawn up with more regard to logical connections between parts of each one.
-
I have lived in Marple for about 7 years.
We have a lot in common with New Mills, including depending on the same train line and having better public transport links into Manchester then Stockport. Given that I have never had a wish or reason to visit Hyde, I don’t consider it belongs with Marple. Hyde does not even use the same hospital as we do.
Maybe the constituencies should be based along the train lines....
-
A very interesting proposal.
Having had a look at the political make up of the area included in that map, according to the councillors serving the eight wards (four in Hyde, and four in the Bredbury, Woodley, Romiley and Marple areas of Stockport), I've added up the councillors elected from each of the parties as follows:
Labour 10 (all in Hyde)
Lib Dem 7 (all in Marple/ Romiley)
Tory 6 (2 in Hyde, 4 in Marple and Romiley)
Residents 1 (Bredbury Green and Romiley ward)
TOTAL 24
Doesn't look much like a Tory seat any more, does it..........
-
Also all Tameside wards are much smaller than Stockport wards thus I would think the balance of population is in Stockport.
Further the Resident Cllr in Romiley was actually elected as a LD so should reflect that Dave. She will be gone when her term comes to an end.
-
Ours would seem to be one of the more radically different constituencies in the northwest under these proposals.
-
We have a lot in common with New Mills, including depending on the same train line and having better public transport links into Manchester then Stockport. Given that I have never had a wish or reason to visit Hyde, I don’t consider it belongs with Marple. Hyde does not even use the same hospital as we do.
Maybe the constituencies should be based along the train lines....
I wish this forum had a 'Like' button.
-
We have a lot in common with New Mills, including depending on the same train line and having better public transport links into Manchester then Stockport. Given that I have never had a wish or reason to visit Hyde, I don’t consider it belongs with Marple. Hyde does not even use the same hospital as we do.
Maybe the constituencies should be based along the train lines....
Although arguably, as the Rose Hill train goes through Hyde Central, we are linked to Hyde. Not that I'm particularly enamoured with the idea either, mind.
-
Also all Tameside wards are much smaller than Stockport wards thus I would think the balance of population is in Stockport.
Having nothing better to do on a quiet Sunday afternoon, I've just crunched the numbers for the populations of the four Hyde wards in Tameside and the four wards in the Bredbury, Romiley and Marple areas of Stockport.
The population of Hyde is 46,233. The population of those areas of Stockport is 51,418. That splits the population of the proposed new constituency roughly 53% Stockport, to 47% Hyde. (NB this is the total population, not the electorate - i.e. it includes children).
With 10 Labour councillors, 7 Lib Dem and 6 Tory, assuming people vote the same way in national elections as they do in local ones (yes, I know you can't necessarily assume that, but bear with me!), this does suggest it could be an interesting contest. Superficially Labour would seem to be favourites, but of course that depends largely on whether the Parliamentary Labour Party gets it act together (don't hold your breath!).
-
Given that our MP has not brother to replay to the 3 emails I have sent him (var writetothem.com), I assume he does not want to get re-elected anyway.
-
I'm sure WWW will want to go with Hazel Grove into its new constituency grouping with Bramhall, Poynton and Handforth, where his seat looks pretty safe.
-
Given that our MP has not brother to replay to the 3 emails I have sent him (var writetothem.com), I assume he does not want to get re-elected anyway.
Why not write to him directly, rather than via a charity web site which may or may not work correctly?
His email address is william@williamwragg.org.uk
-
Why not write to him directly, rather than via a charity web site which may or may not work correctly?
His email address is william@williamwragg.org.uk
writetothem.com works very well. However, I would imagine that most MPs receive a lot of correspondence, especially via email as it is so easy to do, and I wouldn't be surprised if some MPs prioritise emails from people who took the trouble to find out their direct contact details over those sent via third parties - I have a semi public facing role at work, and I do this as a way of managing the volume.
-
Hyde:
Mrs. Basementlife and I venture to Hyde to shop at the 2 As, Aldi and Asda and sometimes take the waters at the No.64 Cafe on Market Street. The experience is not as traumatic as some may think.
Interestingly, and sadly Hyde was the scene of two disasters in the nineteenth century.
The Norfolk Arms Disaster 1st April 1829:
Throughout the reign of George IV, the depression in the cotton trade continued and produced the circumstances which led to one of the most appalling disasters of our industrial history - the event known as "May's Downfall".
In the summer of 1828, the cotton trade was in such a bad state that the masters announced a reduction of wages. The reduction was firmly opposed by the operatives and a great strike commenced which rapidly spread throughout the district. At Stockport the struggle was extremely bitter, neither side showing any desire to give way. In Hyde a better spirit prevailed and soon the mills in Hyde were all working full-time. However, the harmony did not continue. The operatives of Hyde were contributing each week from their wages towards the support of the people who were out on strike in Stockport, as a result of which their employers issued a notice on 24th March 1829 that the manufacturers, whose mills were working, intended to reduced their wages by 10 per cent every 14 days until the Stockport hands returned to work.
http://www.tameside.gov.uk/blueplaque/norfolkarms (http://www.tameside.gov.uk/blueplaque/norfolkarms)
and Hyde Lane Colliery Explosion
On the morning of Friday, 18 January 1889, 200 miners started their morning shift at 5:30am assisted by seven pit ponies.
read more on Pete Whitehead's excellent website.
http://www.pittdixon.go-plus.net/lpfc-hyde-wharf/pit-disaster.htm (http://www.pittdixon.go-plus.net/lpfc-hyde-wharf/pit-disaster.htm)
-
Let's hope it goes in the Hyde direction to avoid the Tories. WW doesn't seem popular locally and has supported all the more nasty policies.
However I reckon libDem will do better next time around. Smart seems to be sticking around. Can't see Taylor going for candidate again for Lab since he is so vocally against current leadership and on the right wing of such a divided party.
-
The results of the first consultation are now available at:
https://www.bce2018.org.uk/
You can read the comments of local people & yes I was one of them
-
Thanks corium. I sampled a few of the comments, and many of them make the same very good point: that it makes no geographical or political sense to combine areas which belong to different local authorities.
This dogmatic preoccupation with balancing the numbers (all constituencies must now have an electorate of between 71,000 and 78,000) is in danger of overriding historical boundaries and allegiances, and flies in the face of sheer common sense.
Surely the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies should as far as possible be aligned with those of local authorities. And if that means some constituencies have more voters than others (within reason) then so be it.
-
Thanks corium. I sampled a few of the comments, and many of them make the same very good point: that it makes no geographical or political sense to combine areas which belong to different local authorities.
This dogmatic preoccupation with balancing the numbers (all constituencies must now have an electorate of between 71,000 and 78,000) is in danger of overriding historical boundaries and allegiances, and flies in the face of sheer common sense.
Surely the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies should as far as possible be aligned with those of local authorities. And if that means some constituencies have more voters than others (within reason) then so be it.
Indeed. One of the problems about objecting to the proposals is that we are not allowed to challenge the basis for them. That is, we cannot argue that the need for equal sized constituencies can be a danger to democracy by destroying the connection between constituencies and local commutities, as the Boundary Commission is bound by law to try and make them equal. It is like many 'consultations' which are actually nothing of the sort.
-
Yes. It's a choice between two 'dangers to democracy'. It seems we have decided to address the danger to democracy which is created by having wide variations in the number of electors in different constituencies, by creating a new danger to democracy by disrupting the connection between local authority districts and parliamentary constituencies.
But as we all know, this is not actually about anything so high-falutin as democracy. It's just about grubby politics: the standardisation of constituencies, and the resultant reduction in their overall number, will reduce the number of seats, and the majority of those which will be abolished will be Labour-held seats.
Although given that the Labour party currently seems hell-bent upon self-destruction, I guess it will actually make little difference!
-
Yes. It's a choice between two 'dangers to democracy'. It seems we have decided to address the danger to democracy which is created by having wide variations in the number of electors in different constituencies, by creating a new danger to democracy by disrupting the connection between local authority districts and parliamentary constituencies.
But as we all know, this is not actually about anything so high-falutin as democracy. It's just about grubby politics: the standardisation of constituencies, and the resultant reduction in their overall number, will reduce the number of seats, and the majority of those which will be abolished will be Labour-held seats.
Although given that the Labour party currently seems hell-bent upon self-destruction, I guess it will actually make little difference!
Dave, I've never voted Tory in my life and I suspect never will, but I'm not sure that the principle of standardisation of voting areas is 'grubby politics' per se. There is a degree of sense to it, even if locally it can throw up anachronisms.
We laugh at America where the current president 'lost' the public vote but still 'won' the election, so surely we should, at least, try to make our own basically flawed system (don't get me started on 'first past the post' as a principle) at least a little fairer.
So what if Labour lose some seats - these extra seats have arguably given them an unfair advantage at general elections for some time.
-
I'm not sure that the principle of standardisation of voting areas is 'grubby politics' per se. There is a degree of sense to it, even if locally it can throw up anachronisms.
Yes, there is a degree of sense to it, of course. But IMHO there is a greater degree of sense to aligning local authority and parliamentary constituency boundaries, even if that creates anomalies (within reason).
And when the whole process is done and dusted, there will still be some exceptions - the Isle of Wight and some Scottish islands will still have electorates that are not within the 'magic' range of 71,000 - 78,000. So it will be OK for the Isle of Wight to have two constituencies with about 55,000 voters in each, but it's not OK for Hazel Grove to have 62,000 voters. >:(
-
Reading briefly through the comments, it is clear that a lot of people are missing the point and don't understand the process of a consultation. Most either complain against why the Review has been done in the first place - which is completely pointless - or just complain about the proposal to twin with Hyde. They do not come up with any practical objections to it that would be worth considering.
"And when the whole process is done and dusted, there will still be some exceptions - the Isle of Wight and some Scottish islands will still have electorates that are not within the 'magic' range of 71,000 - 78,000. So it will be OK for the Isle of Wight to have two constituencies with about 55,000 voters in each, but it's not OK for Hazel Grove to have 62,000 voters."
The new review will ensure there will be far less exceptions than there were before, so any improvement on this is fine by me. The only "Grubby politics" on electoral boundaries is the over-arching fact that we've been saddled with an outdated electoral system which hasn't been fit for purpose for nearly half a century. So if we must continue to have it, any improvement on the disparity of seats versus actual votes is fine by me. If Labour were benefitting from this more than other parties then that is irrelevant.
PR would eliminate most of these issues at a stroke.
-
PR would eliminate most of these issues at a stroke.
PR would eliminate democracy at a stroke.
-
If Labour were benefitting from this more than other parties then that is irrelevant.
Labour will not benefit from the boundary review - they will lose out. But that's not my problem with it. Local authorities have been steadily downgraded and stripped of their powers and responsibilities for thirty years or more, as central government has grabbed ever more control. Removing the link between local and national government can only weaken local government even more than it is now. Maybe that's why the government is doing it.......
The present Hazel Grove constituency consist of six Stockport wards: Bredbury and Woodley, Bredbury Green and Romiley, Hazel Grove, Marple North, Marple South, and Offerton. The eighteen councillors for these wards can be (and are) in frequent touch with our MP over matters of mutual local interest and concern, and I believe this works well.
If Marple, Romiley and Hyde are forced together in this shotgun marriage, the Stockport issues will be quite different from the Tameside issues, and that can only impede teamwork and a sense of community and common purpose. The Romans called it 'divide and rule.'
PR would eliminate democracy at a stroke.
Many other countries have PR (most EU countries , Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand etc etc) and many of these are, if anything, more (not less) democratic than the UK.
-
Reading briefly through the comments, it is clear that a lot of people are missing the point and don't understand the process of a consultation. Most either complain against why the Review has been done in the first place - which is completely pointless - or just complain about the proposal to twin with Hyde. They do not come up with any practical objections to it that would be worth considering.
The essence of Parliamentary democracy is that each distinct local area elects a man or woman to represent them in Parliament. They don't vote for a party, they vote for a person to represent the interests of the area. For that to work, constituencies must reflect logical local areas. If they don't and the proposed consituency doesn't, then is makes a nonsense of the democratic process. Sadly, what we have at the moment is a fake consultation. The real arguments; that we should not be having fewer MPs and that coherent, logical constituencies are more important than equality of electorate, are outside the scope of the so called consultation.
-
Many other countries have PR (most EU countries , Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand etc etc) and many of these are, if anything, more (not less) democratic than the UK.
Any system that works on the basis of electing members of the legislature based on which party they belong to is inherently anti-democratic. Some PR systems are worse than others and there are some (the German for example) where at least some members are elected individually. However, electing an individual (not a party) for the smallest practical constituency (not a large, multi-member one) is an absolute essential for a reprentative democracy.
-
The essence of Parliamentary democracy is that each distinct local area elects a man or woman to represent them in Parliament. They don't vote for a party, they vote for a person to represent the interests of the area. For that to work, constituencies must reflect logical local areas. If they don't and the proposed consituency doesn't, then is makes a nonsense of the democratic process. Sadly, what we have at the moment is a fake consultation. The real arguments; that we should not be having fewer MPs and that coherent, logical constituencies are more important than equality of electorate, are outside the scope of the so called consultation.
Do you truly believe that everyone who votes in a first-past-the-post election does so to elect someone to represent the interests of their area? In all 650 seats?
-
Any system that works on the basis of electing members of the legislature based on which party they belong to is inherently anti-democratic.... electing an individual (not a party) for the smallest practical constituency (not a large, multi-member one) is an absolute essential for a reprentative democracy.
Almost all democratic countries throughout the world operate a system of representative democracy based on political parties. Condate's notion of non-partisan democracy is almost non-existent. I just looked it up, to find where in the world such a democratic system exists, and the answer is that it exists almost nowhere. The only countries I could find which operate such a system are tiny ones: Saint Helena, Nauru, Micronesia, Pitcairn etc.
All major democratic countries elect members of the legislature based on which party they belong to. That's democracy. Suggesting that democracy is anti-democratic is a contradiction in terms.
But I agree with Condate here:
constituencies must reflect logical local areas. If they don't and the proposed consituency doesn't, then is makes a nonsense of the democratic process. Sadly, what we have at the moment is a fake consultation. The real arguments; that we should not be having fewer MPs and that coherent, logical constituencies are more important than equality of electorate, are outside the scope of the so called consultation.
-
I haven't looked up the details of the proposed situation as they aren't so easy to find but the current (UK, not England) situation where it seems that constituencies sizes range from approximately 20k to 100k electors isn't really defensible
-
Corium is right of course - such extreme differences in the size of constituency electorates need to be addressed, if that is possible within the bounds of commonsense. But where they have gone wrong, I think, is to insist on an unrealistically narrow band of electorate sizes. A range of 71K to 78K is only +/- 4%.
In the consultation documents, the Boundary Commission summarise their objectives like this:
In general, we aim to:
Design as many constituencies as practicable that do not cross a council area boundary.
Recognise existing community ties.
Take into consideration local geography (for example transport links, other electoral boundaries, administrative boundaries and natural features).
Consider special geographical considerations where appropriate.
So they haven't done very well, have they! If they were serious about that they would have allowed a wider range of electorate sizes. 65K - 85K would not be unreasonable, and might have enabled the commission to actually achieve some of the above aims!
-
Corium is right of course - such extreme differences in the size of constituency electorates need to be addressed, if that is possible within the bounds of commonsense. But where they have gone wrong, I think, is to insist on an unrealistically narrow band of electorate sizes. A range of 71K to 78K is only +/- 4%.
In the consultation documents, the Boundary Commission summarise their objectives like this:
In general, we aim to:
Design as many constituencies as practicable that do not cross a council area boundary.
Recognise existing community ties.
Take into consideration local geography (for example transport links, other electoral boundaries, administrative boundaries and natural features).
Consider special geographical considerations where appropriate.
So they haven't done very well, have they! If they were serious about that they would have allowed a wider range of electorate sizes. 65K - 85K would not be unreasonable, and might have enabled the commission to actually achieve some of the above aims!
On the other hand if PR - specifically STV - was introduced, we wouldn't be having this debate. The votes would be awarded equally and the party list system would come into play, thus in theory allowing for more flexibility in constituency sizes, and candidates all being locally chosen.
Did the Commission set the sizes, Dave, or were they ordered to work within those parameters?
-
Just looked it up on Wikipedia, Melancholy, and found this:
The boundary commissions are required to apply a set series of rules when devising constituencies.
Firstly, each proposed constituency has to comply with two numerical limits:
the electorate (number of registered voters) of each constituency must be within 5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota. The electoral quota is the average number of electors per constituency, defined as the total mainland electorate divided by the number of mainland constituencies, where "mainland" excludes four island constituencies: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles), and two on the Isle of Wight.
The use of the word 'required' implies that the +/- 5% range was imposed upon the commission by parliament.
-
There will of course be a great deal of fallout from last week's unexpected election result. One aspect - not much mentioned as yet - is that these proposed changes to the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies will probably be binned, thank goodness!
-
How likely is probably?
I thought the Boundary Commission operated outside of regime change but happy to be corrected
-
Pure speculation on my part, Melancholy, but proposals from the Electoral Commission still have to be submitted to Parliament for approval. The likely changes are said to mainly favour the Tory party. But as the government has no majority, they could easily be voted down.
-
Pure speculation on my part, Melancholy, but proposals from the Electoral Commission still have to be submitted to Parliament for approval. The likely changes are said to mainly favour the Tory party. But as the government has no majority, they could easily be voted down.
I thought that the changes had already been approved, and just assumed that they didn't take affect for this election because it was a "snap" one.
-
The Boundary Commission's recommendations were published last year - as discussed in this thread. However, they have not yet been submitted to Parliament for approval.
The relevant Wikipedia article says 'Once a commission has completed a review, it submits a report to the Secretary of State who puts forward legislation to Parliament implementing the recommendations. Parliament may approve or reject these recommendations, but may not amend them'.
-
So it could certainly be scrapped. Interesting.
-
It could, but if it goes ahead labor will lose the most seats from it. (Unless the rule book has been rewritten last week more then I think)
-
The Boundary Commission has been reviewing the comments on its initial proposals, and has now embarked on a second round of consultation. See https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6487?postcode=SK69BT
It seems that some proposals which were in the first round have been revised in the light of comments received, but ours remains as it was - and just as crazy, IMHO. ::)
Hyde is within the existing constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde, which is, of course, a very safe Labour seat. In combining Marple and Romiley with Hyde, in the new constituency of Marple and Hyde, I suspect it could well be a Labour win. Back in June, Labour won a whacking 57% of the vote in Stalybridge and Hyde, and here in Hazel Grove, Labour came third but still got a very respectable 20% of the vote.
If I were Willie Wragg I think I'd be worried!
-
The Boundary Commission has been reviewing the comments on its initial proposals, and has now embarked on a second round of consultation. See https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6487?postcode=SK69BT
It seems that some proposals which were in the first round have been revised in the light of comments received, but ours remains as it was - and just as crazy, IMHO. ::)
Hyde is within the existing constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde, which is, of course, a very safe Labour seat. In combining Marple and Romiley with Hyde, in the new constituency of Marple and Hyde, I suspect it could well be a Labour win. Back in June, Labour won a whacking 57% of the vote in Stalybridge and Hyde, and here in Hazel Grove, Labour came third but still got a very respectable 20% of the vote.
If I were Willie Wragg I think I'd be worried!
I agree it's crazy (and I speak as someone who grew up in Hyde!) But whether the area would become a Labour seat is an interesting question. For if you look at Tameside's councillors, of the six that are from the Conservative party, three of them represent Hyde Werneth.
I'm sure the various parties have crunched their numbers and made their predictions internally. But I have to say, given the strength of both the Conservatives and Lib Dems in Marple,
As for William Wragg, would he go with the new Hazel Grove constituency? Note that the Tory candidate for Stalybridge and Hyde last election lives in Marple. I suspect someone's got their claim in for the new seat in advance. Should it actually happen...
-
As for William Wragg, would he go with the new Hazel Grove constituency?
Good point. Of course he will, if he has any choice in the matter. The new Hazel Grove and Bramhall constituency looks like a very safe Tory seat.
Not so sure about the 'strength of the LibDems in Marple' though. Yes, they are still strong at councillor level, but the LibDem parliamentary vote collapsed between 2010 and 2015, from 49% to 26%, although it recovered a bit to 33% this year.
While taking Andrew's point about the Tory councillors in Hyde Werneth, local council votes are not necessarily reflected at general elections. For example the six Stockport wards that make up the current Hazel Grove constituency currently have eleven LibDem councillors and six Tory councillors. But we have a Tory MP!
-
Problem is these boundaries now likely won't pass at all.
Prior to the 2017 Election there were enough MP's on government benches to see this through. After that election there are three factors against it.
1. Opposition will likely seek to end them regardless because it will harm them.
2. Conservatives who lose seats might not want to lose their seats by voting for this.
3. Sinn Fein become the largest party in NI on the notional boundaries. The DUP will sink this rather than watch the nationalists become the largest NI party.
So that leaves three scenarios.
1. Somehow these actually pass and we become a part of Marple and Hyde.
2. A new redraw occurs based on 650 seats and current electorate which the opposition would be willing to see through.
3. Its outright scrapped and we remain in the 2007 drawn Hazel Grove Constituency for the next election.
Really, its a waste of time to continue the commission. Because unless magically we hold another snap election (not impossible really) and have a Conservative majority this is never going through. It'd be better to restart the process with legislation that Parliament would be willing to pass.
-
Thanks Will - that sounds quite encouraging :)
-
Thanks corium. I sampled a few of the comments, and many of them make the same very good point: that it makes no geographical or political sense to combine areas which belong to different local authorities.
This dogmatic preoccupation with balancing the numbers (all constituencies must now have an electorate of between 71,000 and 78,000) is in danger of overriding historical boundaries and allegiances, and flies in the face of sheer common sense.
Surely the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies should as far as possible be aligned with those of local authorities. And if that means some constituencies have more voters than others (within reason) then so be it.
@Dave this comment of yours still goes to the heart of it. It was originally an idea by Cameron to reduce the number of MPs in the wake of expenses scandals. Keeping the numbers of electors so rigid has caused these cross-boundary constituencies.
I did go the public meeting of the commission, and all their calculations were based on numbers.
I always thought that Hazel Grove was a strange name for our constituency, when some of Hazel Grove was in neighbouring Cheadle! Don't worry, this will be a thing of the past when we improve democracy by adopting Proportional Representation - but that's for another thread and time, I think.
-
this will be a thing of the past when we improve democracy by adopting Proportional Representation
Bring it on! And meanwhile, let's hope Will is right: Problem is these boundaries now likely won't pass at all.
-
Don't worry, this will be a thing of the past when we improve democracy by adopting Proportional Representation - but that's for another thread and time, I think.
I think you mean remove democracy altogether, but as you say, that's perhaps for another thread!
-
After a pause of about four years, the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) has now published its new proposals for constituency boundaries.
Here is the proposed Hazel Grove constituency: https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-North-West-Initial-Proposals-26.-Hazel-Grove-CC.pdf
Those with long memories may recall that back in 2016/17, when the initial proposals were first floated, it was suggested that a new constituency might be formed from Marple, Romiley and Hyde. Bonkers, of course, and thankfully enough people pointed that out for the BCE to change its mind.
As you see, the proposed new Hazel Grove constituency looks remarkably similar to the present one, but if you look at it closely there is one difference - it now includes the Manor ward, which was formerly in the Stockport constituency.
So it looks like a sensible proposal. If it has any political effect at all, maybe it will marginally increase the Labour vote? But not sufficiently to give WW any sleepless nights......
-
Worth noting that the proposals for a Marple and Hyde constituency were done because the then Tory government decided to reduce the number of MPs by 50.
Tory MPs in safe seats were too worried about losing their jobs so the number of MPs will remain the same. Hence Marple and Hyde is no more.
Nothing to do the seeing sense. Everything to do with MPs thinking they should have a job for as long they want it.
-
Whatever the reasons, the decision is welcome. There are already enough constituencies in the country which are totally illogical without creating more.
Ideally, we need more MPs, so constituencies can be of a more manageable size and perhaps reflect natural communities more, but Hazel Grove is better than some, even though Marple and Hazel Grove are rather different to say the least.
-
A very sensible set of proposals compared to the last two attempts to get this done. Hazel Grove and Poynton vs Marple and Hyde. Well this one only adds Manor so far less disruption and the same historical link going past assuming it is able to pass through the consultation stage untouched.
So it looks like a sensible proposal. If it has any political effect at all, maybe it will marginally increase the Labour vote? But not sufficiently to give WW any sleepless nights......
Hard to say. I suspect on a General Election level Manor votes Labour 1st and Conservative 2nd currently as a part of the Stockport constituency. But we know that from a ward level on the council elections it votes Labour 1st and then Liberal 2nd. Until 2016 it was a Liberal stronghold when it switched to a Labour seat. The most recent set was a 11% gap which is not insurmounable.
Now, baring in mind this was when it was a part of the Stockport constituency I imagine things change hands if it moves to Hazel Grove. Assuming the Hazel Grove Liberals move quickly with their bar charts they should be in a prime position to take the support of the ward and even things with the Conservatives on the constituency level. This is a pure assumption considering potential campaigning strategies, I think Labour would be knocked back in the ward with such a poor foundation to work with in Hazel Grove as a whole.
But time will tell. If these boundaries get through consultation.