Blurred Boundaries and Bluster

 

On 8 Jun 21, The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) published its initial proposals for new constituency boundaries. There is an eight-week consultation process, ending tomorrow.  A “statutory distribution formula” means that England will be allocated 10 more constituencies than at present with each constituency containing about 69-77000 voters.  Presumably the BCE remit did not include an assessment of whether today’s Parliament was fit for purpose?

The proposals for this part of Yorkshire see my constituency, Selby & Ainsty, being split, respectively, between new Selby and Wetherby & Easingwold constituencies whilst our neighbours, Elmet & Rothwell are abolished and their wards distributed, apparently, randomly.

Whilst the BCE proposals were available for all to see on their website, my own party conducted a consultation of their own.  I came by a copy of “Submission of the Conservative Party regarding the Initial Proposals of the Boundary Commission for England for the Yorkshire and the Humber Region,” on Tuesday 27 July 2021 and noted that, “we cannot emphasise enough how important it is to get members of the public, community groups, etc. to write in support of individual elements of the proposals.”  It was also clear that it was CCHQ policy to withhold these proposals until 26 July 2021.  Doubtless, many Conservative Party colleagues, who could have been consulted along the way, will feel dismayed that they are now being invited to fall in behind a fait accompli by the deadline of 2 August 2021.

The subject proposals are presented in detail and a great deal of effort must have been expended in their compilation.  That said, in the limited time available for scrutiny, the proposal itself appears to be something of a dogs’ breakfast and seems to ignore the knock-on impacts on adjacent territories.  On the other hand, it scores, demonstrably in party self-interest.  This is disappointing at a time when our party seems to be very short of recognisable policy initiatives in key areas such as:

•         Paying for Covid and controlling spending
•         Dealing with the hospital back log
•         Catching up with lost education
•         Social care reform
•        Illegal immigration control
•        Energy sustainability
•        The reality of Net Zero aspirations

not to mention “levelling up,” whatever that means.  Voters could be forgiven for getting the impression that MPs were more interested in shoring up their positions with what looks like old-fashioned gerrymandering than dealing with current social and financial challenges.

For what it’s worth, the BCE proposals, at least, have the merit of equalising the electorate numbers in the respective constituencies.  But, if we are not going to address the fundamental issue and radically reduce the total number of MPs overall, one may ask what is the point of tinkering with boundaries within the existing Westminster behemoth?

Meantime, this morning’s Sunday Telegraph may make uncomfortable reading for CCHQ.  Janet Daley, talking about the triumph of slogans over policy, concludes with the advice, “there may be some quick routes to getting the electorate on your side but treating them like idiots isn’t one of them.” Simon Heffer opines that, “it will require a Government with strength in its convictions – and the confidence to face head-on the messy reality of post-pandemic Britain.”  That’s just how Mushroom sees it in this decidedly messy part of Yorkshire.