Landscape Gardening Maintenance Marple & Marple Bridge

Author Topic: Boundary Commission Proposals  (Read 18224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2017, 11:07:02 AM »
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.   >:(

Belly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • Marple Cricket Club Website
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2017, 01:38:56 PM »
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.
Words are trains for passing through what really has no name...

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2017, 10:58:37 AM »
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!

Condate

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2017, 01:05:43 PM »
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.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2017, 11:23:20 AM »
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. 

corium

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2017, 09:55:57 AM »
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

JMC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2016, 11:25:29 AM »
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. 

Basementlife

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2016, 06:32:14 PM »
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

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
Martin C

marpleexile

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2016, 11:15:41 PM »
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.

Harry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2016, 05:45:19 PM »
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

"Nothing is infinite, except the universe and stupid people, and sometimes, I doubt the universe."
--- Albert Einstein

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2016, 01:47:24 PM »
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.

ringi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2016, 01:33:47 PM »
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.   

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2016, 02:14:42 PM »
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!).

barndoor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2016, 07:07:55 PM »
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.

barndoor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Boundary Commission Proposals
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2016, 06:52:54 PM »
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.