In boundary changes, Kent, South East on October 28, 2011 by dadge

Thanks to the kind intervention of a commenter, I’ve amended my proposals for the Medway area of Kent, and now you’ll be hard-pressed to see the difference between them and the current constituencies.

Hopefully you’ve spotted the differences are (1) the transfer of the River ward to Gillingham, (2) the addition of Kings Hill, Leybourne, West Malling and East Malling to the Chatham constituency, and (3) the transfer of Holborough and Snodland to the Rochester constituency. So under my proposals, Cuxton, Halling, Holborough and Snodland are now together in the Rochester seat.

Contrast that with the Boundary Commission’s proposals. They’re suggesting, mostly for no good reason, that 4 wards from the centre of the urban area are swapped around between the Medway seats, moving 35,000 voters unnecessarily.

It’s interesting to see how that massive change was spun…

According to the Politicus blog, “Medway’s three existing parliamentary constituencies look set to remain, with minor changes.”

According to the Rochester People blog, “all three Medway constituencies will be slightly redesigned but otherwise intact.”

John Ward introduces his blogpost by stating that “it looks as though our three constituencies would remain as now” with “a few changes.”

Tristan Osborne showed more perspicacity, saying “It seems the wonks in the Boundary Commission have made some quite odd ward moves.”

Kent Online reported, with Twitter-style brevity, “The Medway Towns will continue to have three MPs but there are name changes and new boundaries for all.”

If you want massive change in Medway, or if you don’t, email the Commission.

Note: Sorry the original post had mistakes in it – I hope I’ve corrected them all!


2 Responses to “Medway”

  1. Woohoo!

    I’m not trying to pick, but your map is wrong. Your C&A seat is not up to quota without the addition of Kings Hill, which isn’t shown. Your list of changes also doesn’t mention it (though your spreadsheet does), and nor does it mention the transfer of River ward to Gillingham. Still, yours is easily the best combined Kent/East Sussex proposal I’ve seen. Good luck at the hearing!

    • Thanks again – these mistakes creep in when my mind is elsewhere (In the East Midlands, in fact). I added Kings Hill by mistake originally but then decided it was a good fit. It’s an odd place – I wasn’t surprised to read that it’s built on old RAF land, since otherwise it’s hard to imagine how the planners would’ve allowed it.

      Another thought – I wonder whether Aylesford is the smallest place in England to be part of a constituency name?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: