Boundary Commission Proposals

[Will L]

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.

[Condate]

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. 

[andrewbowden]

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.

[Dave]

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......

 

[Condate]

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!

[Dave]

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.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

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.

[Dave]

Thanks Will - that sounds quite encouraging 

[Will L]

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.

[Dave]

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!

[andrewbowden]

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...

[Dave]

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!

[ringi]

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)

[Melancholyflower]

So it could certainly be scrapped. Interesting.

[Dave]

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'.