Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Cheadle and Gatley Liberal Democrats
Demand more Learn more
Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Gatley's Lucy Boxes
Sign up for weekly emails
Proposed new Parliamentary constituencies announced
by Lib Dem team on 17 October, 2017
The Boundary Commission have released their latest proposals for new Parliamentary constituencies.
A new Stockport South and Cheadle constituency would cover Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle, Heald Green, Gatley, Edgeley, Cheadle Heath, Davenport, Cale Green and part of the Heatons.
Meanwhile, Hazel Grove and Wilmslow would stretch from Alderley Edge through Wilmslow and Bramhall right up to Offerton.
Had the 2017 General Election been fought on these new boundaries, the Conservatives would have won a majority. However, few people think these new boundaries will ever be approved by MPs.
Isn’t the Boundary Commission an independent body? In which case, what basis would MPs have for not approving its proposals? Other than self interest, of course.
Hi John – it is independent. MPs might vote against because they disagreed with the whole idea of reducing the seats from 650 to 600, or they disagreed with the idea of having all the seats with very similar numbers of voters. (The latter one has resulted in some very odd seats that don’t reflect local communities). Or they disagree with the conclusions the Commission have reached. Or they disagree with an outcome that would help the Conservatives and harm the other parties. Or, as you say, they don’t want to lose their own seats.
650 reduced to 600 and MP’s voting. Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.
The Conservatives would have won a majority if these new boundaries been implemented? Reason enough to abandon these plans methinks.
Isn’t the idea of equal sized constituencies a fair one.
Depends David. If the outcome is a result that doesn’t reflect the will of voters, or bizarre constituencies that bear no relation to local communities then I’d say probably not.
With the system that we have I cannot see the fairness in having constituencies of sizes varying from 110,000 to 22,000.
This is a vote that should not be left for Parliament to vote on but should be voted on by the people. We all know how Parliament will vote so it will be a waste of time doing it. Yet more wasted money. Also why is the Council tax going up another 5% this year which makes it near enough 10% in two years. We can’t keep paying this money to this council which has the highest rates in Manchester. What is going on?
Hi Arthur – the challenge with Council tax is that the Government continues to cut the money for councils and the cost pressures on councils rise. To provide exactly the same services as last year, council tax would have to go up by a lot more than 5%. As we enter the 7th year of cuts, councils still need to figure out how to provide all those services.
Try following me Arthur!…
Move to Cheshire East – they know the value of money over here! ?
So why don’t other councils put it up so much? Other councils like Salford have to provide more services as there are not so many affluent areas in that Council area. The Council need to think of ways to save money and not expect us the rate payers to bail them out. Let’s cut all the Council buildings and viaduct lights for a start this must save a huge amount.
What about a new way of raising local tax. Each household would pay a tax based on the services they use, so a family of two with no children would pay less than a family of five with 3 children at school and so on. It could be tweaked so that those in ‘posher houses’ would pay more, because the rich don’t pay enough as it is. It could be called the Head Tax, or maybe the Pole Tax……….
Robert
A couple of easier ways of the richer amongst us paying their fairer share (something I entirely agree with you on). First, replace council tax with a local income tax. Or, as the rich always seem to find ways of dodging income tax, keep council tax but simply expand the number of bands.
Sounds like you guys need Robin Hood
I think I’ve been misunderstood – the so called ‘rich’ DO pay more in tax, both direct and indirect (I can’t quote the various sources as I’m away on a well earned annual holiday). There are a relative few who will pay less by avoidance etc. A local tax on goods Seems fair – as they do in Florida (and I guess other states). The point I was trying to make was that because people live in ‘expensive houses/neighbourhoods’ doesn’t mean that they are rich. I doubt that I could buy my house today!