Broxtowe Parliamentary Constituence – Boundary Commission Suggest a Change

Paul Nathanail has sent this to us by email:-   I have today made the following response to the Boundary Commission for England consultation on proposed changes to the Parliamentary constituency boundaries:

“Existing: BROXTOWE

Initial proposal: Broxtowe and Hucknall

Further to the consultation and based on the map data at https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6483?postcode=NG93FH I am writing to suggest an alternative boundary to the amended constituency of Broxtowe.

The initial proposal is unsatisfactory as it divides the Borough Council area in half and the two resulting constituencies are merged with part of the unitary authority of Nottingham City Council.

This would mean that my MP would represent constituents whose local government is provided by Nottinghamshire County Council/ Broxtowe Borough Council or Nottingham City Council.  This would result in the MP having three sets of councillors to liaise with on local matters which is clearly not an effective use of the MP’s time and would weaken the effectiveness of local matters being considered in Westminster.

Working within the 71,000 to 78,000 limits I would like to make the following proposal for the enlarged Broxtowe constituency:

Retain the entire constituency (electorate of 69,699) and add the wards of Eastwood Hilltop (3857) and Eastwood St Mary’s (3261) to give a total of 76,817.

Were the information on your website available in GIS format (e.g. .SHP) files I would have made an effort to resolve the knock-on effects of the above suggestion on the adjacent constituencies but a qualitative evaluation suggests that the above suggestion can be accommodated.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.”

The consultation is available at https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6483?postcode=NG93FH

There is a short video explaining the reasons for the changes and the process itself at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t58qLgk2CFw&feature=youtu.be

When proposed changes to the county council boundaries were being consulted upon, I recall that a reason local objections to the changes were not listened to was because no alternatives had been suggested – don’t just tell us what you don’t like, tell us what you WOULD like instead was the message.

So if anyone else would like to use the above text as the basis for their responses please feel free to do so.

And if anyone manages to get to one of the Public Hearings in the East Midlands perhaps they could post a summary of the event here. The meetings are:

·  27 – 28 October – Derby(link is external)

·  31 October – 1 November – Northampton(link is external)

·  3 – 4 November – Lincoln

Venue details are at the bottom of the page here:

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6483?postcode=NG93FH

This entry was posted in Parliamentary Constituency. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Broxtowe Parliamentary Constituence – Boundary Commission Suggest a Change

  1. I completely agree that the current proposal is totally unacceptable. Also, inclusion of the Eastwood area in the existing Broxtowe constituency would have the added advantage of having the constituency share the same geographical area as that of Broxtowe Borough Council.
    Paul, you are wrong to say that no alternatives were provided for the suggested alterations to the county council divisions. The current Liberal Democrat county councillors sent in s detailed plan that would have kept the whole of Bramcote in one division and which split up the proposed 2 member division that included Stapleford into two 1 member divisions. The commissioners did consider our proposal but turned it down. I suspect we will get a similar response this time!
    In my opinion, the best way to block the proposal is for our MPs to vote to turn down the new proposals at parliamentary level.

  2. michael rich says:

    I made a similar submission on the boundary commission website, however without proposing a remedy. The inclusion of the two Eastwood wards into the Broxtowe constituency is a far better and less disruptive solution than that proposed by the commission. Thank you Paul.

  3. Stan – thanks for the clarification (shame the commission did not listen to you both) and for the advice. I doubt blocking will work as the number of constituencies is due to be reduced and hence the electorates grow but “nothing ventured – nothing gained”.

    Michael – you are most welcome!

    If anyone planning to go to the Public Hearings in Derby next week, perhaps they could see what the commission think of these – or any other – suggestions.

  4. Nick Palmer says:

    I also support Paul’s proposal and hope that if unamended the Boundary Commissioners’ proposals are rejected by the Commons. Miss Soubry has also criticised them, and I hope will maintain her position so it remains genuinely all-party.

  5. Sue Sambells says:

    I also support Paul’s proposal and have completed the consultation document, adding my additional thoughts, including the commission should value the investment an M.P. has already given in their constituency, with individuals and businesses.

    • Ian Blakeley says:

      Some members of the constituency would question what our various MPs, of various parties, have given to their constituency.

  6. Ian tyler says:

    A voice – you do have to let them know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s