Tom re-elected as Lib Dems make gains
Cheadle and Gatley Liberal Democrats
Demand more Learn more
Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Sign up for weekly emails
Tom re-elected as Lib Dems make gains
Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Sign up for weekly emails
Boundary commission launches Stockport wards consultation
by Lib Dem team on 26 May, 2021
The Local Government Boundary Commission has launched a public consultation on where the ward boundaries should be in Stockport.
Stockport has 21 wards, each with 3 councillors (making 63 in total). A boundary review is triggered when the wards get too big or too small.
In Stockport, Cheadle & Gatley is too big so the commission has to decide what will happen. It could propose anything from a small tweak (e.g. moving some houses from Cheadle & Gatley into Heald Green) to a wholesale change where every ward in Stockport is amended.
This is what the current ward boundary looks like for Cheadle and Gatley:
And this is the whole of Stockport Borough:
I understand the need for boundary reviews. It’s important, though, that a sense of community is retained.
It’d help if you could give some indication about how many houses would need to be moved out of the current ward to make it “ideal”. That knowledge, in itself, may suggest the realignment.
Boundary review: Boundary adjustments are a cynical ploy to ensure a certain party can adjust it’s voter catchment to either retain it’s dominance or dilute another parties total to enable a change of control in that area.
Transparency is being lost and with it trust in the voting system.
Hi John, boundary reviews are set up by law and carried out by an independent commission.
John – using your logic there would never be any boundary changes.
You’ve not really defined what “too big” means?
Hi Alan – I think the current rule is that no ward can have over 10% more voters or under 10% fewer voters than the average for the borough.
Do you not mean “more than 10% fewer voters”?
I do not want my address to be changed.
JB – nothing about this could possibly change your address. Which electoral ward you are in is totally separate from your postal address.
Iain – are you saying that the current ward is 10% too large? Or is it a smaller number that would need to be transferred.
Obviously Cheadle & Gatley ward voters could only be transferred to adjacent wards which I think are Heald Green, Cheadle Hulme North and Cheadle Heath. Do we know how they stand with regard to numbers? This could all get very tricky – moving voters to, say, Heald Green is one thing but that might mean them having to lose some of their voters, in turn, to another ward.
JB – your postal address wouldnt be changed. That’s a separate responsibility of Royal Mail. Most, if not all, addresses in the ward currently includes a full postal address of “Cheshire” – something we havent been part of since 1974.
John – It’s more complicated than that and I make no claims to understand all the inner workings. Here’s what the Local Government Boundary Commission have told us:
Part Two: Warding Patterns
We will carry out two phases of public consultation when we will invite you to present your proposals for new ward boundaries.
At the first round of consultation will ask for proposals on new ward boundaries. We will use responses to that consultation to draw up draft recommendations for new boundaries across your area. We will hold a second round of consultation on those proposals during which time you will be able to comment on them and propose alternatives.
The Commission will draw up new electoral arrangements that provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. The criteria include three main elements:
• Delivering electoral equality for local voters. This means ensuring that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters so that the value of your vote is the same regardless of where you live in the local authority area.
• Interests and identities of local communities. This means establishing electoral arrangements which, as far as possible, avoid splitting local ties and where boundaries are easily identifiable.
• Effective and convenient local government. This means ensuring that the wards can be represented effectively by their elected representative(s) and that the new electoral arrangements, including both the council size decision and warding arrangements, allow the local authority to conduct its business effectively.
You should ensure that any proposal you make to the Commission, during either phase of consultation, takes into account the statutory criteria. The most persuasive cases are those that are also supported by evidence. Over the next five pages, you will find further explanation about the types of evidence the Commission usually receives under each of the criteria. This might help you build your own submission.
Delivering Electoral Equality for Local Voters
The Commission aims to deliver a pattern of wards where each councillor represents approximately the same number of electors.
We base decisions on the number of electors in a ward and not the total population. The Commission’s obligation, set out in law, is to deliver electoral equality where councillors represent a similar number of electors. This could not be achieved if we considered population statistics rather than electoral register totals.
Once the Commission has taken a view on council size, it gives us, and anyone interested in submitting proposals to the review, a clear idea of the target for achieving electoral equality for future patterns of wards.
Although we strive for perfect electoral equality for all wards, we recognise that this is unlikely to be exactly achieved. If you propose a boundary that would lead to an electoral variance for the ward (see exhibit 1), the Commission will need to see evidence that such electoral inequality is justified on the grounds of the Commission’s other statutory criteria. The higher the level of electoral variance you are proposing for a ward, the more persuasive your evidence will need to be.
The Commission has an obligation, set out in law, to consider electorate forecasts five years after the completion of the review. The purpose of the forecasts is to try and ensure that the review delivers electoral equality for voters in the longer term. We will work with council officers to draw up realistic forecasts for your authority. Further guidance on how we calculate projected electorates are available on our website at: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/how-reviews-work/technical-guidance
Thanks for the extra info, Iain.
Without knowing how many voters would ideally be moved from C & G ward, it’s difficult to make a submission. I think I’ll wait till the second stage consultation , so I can see what’s proposed. Looking at the map, I can see areas that could probably be moved to Heald Green without much community upset (they are on the fringe of Gatley anyway). There are also areas that could be moved into Cheadle Hulme but I suspect there is more of a “Cheadle community” here.
The problem here is that Heald green has always been run by the independent ratepayers for as long as I’ve lived here, now if you move into Heald green and do your homework, you will understand this, but if you live in gatley and get moved, you will almost certainly lose the chance to vote for your political party of choice and expect them to win. Is that fair?
You’re right Paul, our electoral system isn’t fair. I’d like a proportional system with fewer wasted votes. But this is how our system works now, and how it has always worked since we’ve had democracy. I don’t think anyone’s going to make an exception just for Gatley.
We have houses in Cheadle & Gatley that used to be in Manchester or in other Stockport wards – these things can change over time.