Luton

Parliamentary constituencies in The Chilterns

This is a reference post listing the UK parliamentary constituencies that cover the area of England known as ‘The Chilterns’ with details of the current MP and their party.

A while ago I noted this post which pointed out the correlation between which political parties people vote for and the geology of an area. So if you live where there is chalk you are likely to have a Conservative MP. It turns out that this is largely true.

This got me thinking about the nature of the political representation of the chalk hills that surround where I live — the Chiltern Hills. I wondered who were the MPs who had constituencies that covered The Chilterns and so would have an interest in its conservation.

After a bit of research I came up with the following list which I make available in case anyone finds it useful:

Constituency Current MP Party
Hitchin and Harpenden Peter Lilley Conservative
Mid Bedfordshire Nadine Dorries Conservative
Luton North Kelvin Hopkins Labour
Luton South Gavin Shuker Labour
South West Bedfordshire Andrew Selous Conservative
Hemel Hempstead Michael Penning Conservative
Buckingham John Bercow Speaker
South West Hertfordshire David Gauke Conservative
Aylesbury David Lidington Conservative
Chesham and Amersham Cheryl Gillan Conservative
Beaconsfield Dominic Grieve Conservative
Wycombe Steven Baker Conservative
Henley John Howell Conservative

These are the constituencies that as far as I can tell have boundaries that overlap with the area that The Chilterns covers. I don’t think I’ve missed any. None of these constituencies are wholly in The Chilterns and some only cover a small area.

True to form they are mostly Conservative held seats. The exception being the two Luton seats and that of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who by tradition is not opposed by the main political parties at an election, but who was originally elected as a Conservative.

See also:

I live in a Rotten Borough

Rotten Boroughs Logo (ERS campaign)When I was writing about the South Shields by-election the other day, talking about how safe seats marginalise those who live in them, I pointed out the dominance that the Labour Party have on the local council there. In fact Labour on South Tyneside council have 88.89% of the seats. Which according to the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) makes South Tyneside a ‘One Party State’.

The ERS have launched a ‘Rotten Boroughs’ campaign to highlight what they see as being wrong with the state of local government in England and Wales. New analysis that they have undertaken shows that 21 million people are living in the local government equivalent of One Party States’, which they define as;

“authorities with a single party holding over 75% of council seats, leaving opposition incapable of providing any checks of council decision making.”

The choice of 75% is because this figure gives the ruling party a two-thirds majority which means that they have the ability to change the rules by which a council is run without needing the support of any other party. A practical example of this is if the majority party don’t like the way the opposition is asking awkward questions in council meetings they can change the “Standing Orders” so that there are fewer opportunities for those questions to be asked.

All of the three major parties have examples of these one party states. The Liberal Democrats run Eastleigh with 86.36% of the councillors. This is not so much a problem of how the system is unfair to certain political parties, but about how our ‘First Past the Post’ voting system can give winning parties a disproportionate majority and in doing so make impossible proper scrutiny. As I have said many times — democracy is not just about voting — it also requires debate and challenge. If one party nearly always ends up running the council and the opposition is nearly always powerless to do anything that debate and challenge doesn’t happen and bad government results.

Luton is not the worst example of a ‘Rotten Borough’ but it does just fit within the ERS’s definition of a ‘One Party State’ given that Labour have exactly 75% of the seats on the Council.

I noted also that next door Central Bedfordshire is also a ‘One Party State’. Here the Conservatives have 83.05% of the seats.

I think this partly explains the polarised nature of politics in southern Bedfordshire. We have two unitary councils — each partly responsible for the welfare of the Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis conurbation — but each in turn dominated by a different and opposing political party. Scrutiny of both administrations is difficult and cooperation between the two made impossible because of the lack of a middle ground. For instance, the 36 Luton Labour councillors can’t establish working relationships with Central Bedfordshire Labour councillors because..er…there is only one.

What is the solution? Simply to introduce a fair voting system for local government elections in England and Wales — just like the one introduced into Scotland.

Does any of this strike a cord with you? The ERS are asking people to share their experience of how local democracy has failed them.

Luton Liberal Democrats hold Wigmore

Ballot papersOn Wednesday evening Alan Skepelhorn was elected to Luton Borough Council winning the local by-election for the Wigmore ward. This means that Luton Liberal Democrats have held on to this seat and we keep our numbers at 8 on the Council.

The by-election was held after the sad death of long-standing local campaigner Roy Davies.

I am really pleased. Not least because Alan was a colleague of mine when I was on the council — he was previously a councillor in Round Green ward — and I know what an asset he will be to the Lib Dem group.

But also because this was a really positive result for the Liberal Democrats in Luton. I think the local party was always hopeful of retaining the seat — but I am surprised at the size of the majority. This was a very bad result for the Tories — in effect dropping from second to third — and the Labour challenge was not as strong as I expected it to be. This actually represents a 3.1% swing from Labour to Lib Dems.

It is only one result and in a relatively strong area — but after the bashing we took in the last local elections — this does give some hope that the worst is over.

Credit must go to the small team who worked really hard to get this result. Myself, I didn’t really do much to help — but I did do a little — which is the most active campaigning I’ve done for a long while.

The full result was:

Alan Skepelhorn Lib Dem 982 47%
James Taylor Labour 517 24%
John Young Conservative 281 13%
Lance Richardson UKIP 230 11%
John Magill Independent 62 3%
Marc Scheimann Green 27 1%

Total Votes 2,102

Turnout 24.2%

(I gave the result from last time the ward was fought in May 2011 here)

More coverage of the result here:

Wigmore by-election to be held on 10 April 2013

Ballot papersFollowing the sad death of Liberal Democrat Councillor Roy Davies a by-election to Luton Borough Council for the Wigmore ward is to be held on Wednesday 10 April 2013.

Note that polling day is a Wednesday — not the usual Thursday.

There are six candidates — all men — for the vacant place in this three member ward. The other two councillors for Wigmore are both Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrat candidate will be former councillor Alan Skepelhorn. The Conservatives are putting forward John Young — a regular candidate for them in local elections in Luton. The Labour candidate is James Taylor — who I’ve not come across before.

The candidate for the Green Party will be long standing Green activist Marc Scheimann. Lance Richardson will be the candidate for UK Independence Party — he was the candidate for UKIP in this ward at the last local elections in 2011.

More details about the candidates and the by-election can be found on the Luton Borough Council website.

Going by the result in this ward from the last locals it could be one of those rare things — a genuine three party contest. While I of course hope that Alan can retain the seat for the Liberal Democrats, it will be interesting to see which party emerges as the main challenger.

Wigmore election result – 5 May 2011

Liberal Democrat 1403
Liberal Democrat 1239
Liberal Democrat 1113
Conservative 807
Conservative 787
Labour 786
Labour 781
Labour 734
Conservative 559
UKIP 324

 

Consultation on the future of Luton’s Libraries

Luton Central LibraryLuton Borough Council are currently consulting on the future of the library service in Luton.

In common with many other councils, given the current financial constraints, LBC is looking at ways to change the provision of libraries in Luton in order to find budget savings.

In comparison to the savage cuts that libraries are facing in some places the proposals are relatively modest. Although they do mean that some parts of the Town will lose their local library.

The consultation deadline has been extended until Wednesday 24 April.

Details of the proposed changes can be found in the following factsheet:

You can also read the report that went to the Council’s Executive.

A brief declaration of interest: I am a trustee of Luton Culture, the charity that runs the library service on behalf of Luton Borough Council.

Gavin Shuker and the law on prostitution

I noticed one of my local papers reporting that the MP for Luton South was to lead an “inquiry into whether the law on prostitution should be changed”: ‘Gavin Shuker MP leading inquiry into sex trade laws‘.

I was intrigued.

This is a very worthy, if somewhat tricky, subject to tackle. The law needs to protect, often very vulnerable, people from exploitation so to question whether the current legal situation could be improved to do this better is surely worthwhile. Yet this is not an easy issue for politics to deal with. Society at large seems to have a complicated and often hypocritical attitude to prostitution. It is an area surrounded by myths and taboos — where doing the “right” thing in straightforward policy terms can be easily confused by the messy reality. So any member of parliament interested in social reform who chooses this subject as something to tackle, provided they do so with a practical attitude and an open mind, should be applauded.

Yet, I immediately had some concerns. Knowing the position that Gavin Shuker has taken on some other social issues I wondered how open minded and practical he would be. A brief internet search confirmed my suspicions. Things are not quite what they appear to be with this “inquiry”.

The inquiry is being undertaken by the ‘All Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade’, which Shuker is the Chair of. A “call for evidence” that the group has made closed at the beginning of this month.

The purpose of this APPG as stated on their (rather sketchy) website is:

“to raise awareness of the impact of the sale of sexual services on those involved and to develop proposals for government action to tackle individuals who create demand for sexual services as well as those who control prostitutes; to protect prostituted women by helping them to exit prostitution and to prevent girls from entering prostitution.” (My emphasis)

The Group’s entry in the House of Common’s Register of All-Party Groups states that the secretariat for the Group is provided by CARE (Christian Action Research and Education). CARE’s stated policy towards prostitution — according to their ‘tackling demand’ briefing [PDF] — includes the following:

“CARE recommends that the Government adopt legislation which criminalises the buying of sexual services whilst taking a more compassionate approach to those selling these services.”

Incidentally, CARE are also strongly opposed to the coalition government’s current legislation to achieve equal marriage.

Gavin Shuker himself already seems to have formed some pretty firm views on this issue. In an article in The Guardian in December he is quoted as saying:

“It is clear that the current legal situation is failing women and it is failing communities, and the government needs to consider if the criminalisation of buying sex could help reduce demand.”

I also found this report of a speech he gave to the AGM of a Norfolk charity where he apparently “gave a stirring speech encouraging the gathering to actively fight for a law change to criminalise the purchasing of sex”. I like politicians with a passionate commitment to their beliefs, even if I don’t share them, so I thought it was worth repeating what Shuker is quoted as saying to that meeting:

“One of the biggest lies that is perpetuated, is that it [prostitution] is the oldest profession and for that reason it is always with us and there is nothing you can do. I just fundamentally don’t believe that is true.

“I think we should be angry. I think we should be angry that it’s okay to go out and exploit women in this way. And I think that we should be angry enough to force us into action, to force the people around us to take action, to say that it’s unjust.”

(As an aside the Christian charity he was speaking to was the The Magdalene Group an organisation that does outreach work amongst street prostitutes in Norwich which — on my brief reading of their website — looks to be a very valuable organisation.)

I hope you can see the pattern that is developing here.

CARE, Shuker and the APPG clearly believe that one way to tackle the social problems associated with prostitution is to make the buying of sex itself illegal. Under the current law in England and Wales, soliciting sex and kerb crawling, as well as selling sex in a brothel, are illegal — but the act of paying for sex is not. The argument is that this change in the law would lead to a fall in demand for prostitution. The highlighting of this approach at Westminster follows changes to the law to this effect in a number of Scandinavian countries and recent moves in this direction in Scotland.

Aside from the questions around individual liberty that such a move would create, I am far from convinced that this a workable approach. I am very dubious about the idea that you can legislate away demand for something. Experience across a whole range of social problems suggests that prohibition rarely is successful and often actually makes problems worse. There are many arguments that suggest that this would also be the case with prostitution.

However, I began this post by saying how this was a tricky area to develop policy in. While there are experts and campaigners who argue for prohibition, there are others who will argue for the status quo, for decriminalisation, and for legalisation. I don’t claim to know what reforms to the law are needed — and Shuker is perfectly entitled to take a prohibitionist line. What I do object to is his cloaking his campaigning for a particular outcome in the neutral clothes of a parliamentary inquiry.

I said at the beginning that any member of parliament interested in social reform who chooses this subject as something to tackle, provided they do so with practical attitude and an open mind, should be applauded. Effective all party parliamentary groups can cut across the usual political divides and through investigation and discussion help to build a consensus around reform on a particular issue. Yet it is clear that Shuker and his APPG have already made up their minds. This APPG is less an attempt to gather together parliamentarians with an interest in the issue of prostitution, whatever their views, and more a campaign group with a fixed agenda.

Note also the rather gendered approach of the APPG. Their aim is to “protect prostituted women….and to prevent girls from entering prostitution”. It obviously hasn’t occurred to them that some men may be open to exploitation or that vulnerable boys may need protection.

If this APPG already has a fixed approach to this issue — why have an inquiry?

If you look at the document they have issued in their call for written evidence you will get an idea:

The text includes a “background summary of different legal settlements on prostitution” which argues against the options of regulation, decriminalisation, and legalisation — but paints prohibition in a favourable light. This is then followed by a very short questionnaire.

It all feels like something designed to get responses favourable to their argument. I think this is a classic attempt to find “policy based evidence” and not a genuine process of evidence based policy making.

What we seem to have here is not a rational approach to reviewing and reforming the laws around prostitution — looking at all the evidence and expert opinion from across the spectrum — but more something in the nature of a moral crusade. With such a tricky and sensitive issue as prostitution such an approach is likely to end up causing more harm than good.

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

Marching against the Iraq war – what it means a decade on

Stop the War march 01Inspired by various articles and discussion on social media I ended up spending a part of last Friday evening looking through the photos I had taken on the ‘Stop The War’ march ten years ago that day.

I ended getting a little lost in nostalgia. Looking at pictures of Liberal Democrat friends and colleagues all wrapped up in scarves and gloves against the cold and thinking about what has happened to them, and to me, in the following ten years will do that. I found that I have one or two pictures of people on the march who are now members of parliament — and some who are no longer members of the party. I realised I was a lot less cynical back then than I am now. I was also a lot thinner.

I do remember that day pretty well. I remember the feeling of real pride I had in being a Liberal Democrat and also in being part of that huge crowd together making our opposition known.

But did that march actually achieve anything?

Ultimately it failed in its objective to stop the war. But it would be wrong to go from that to saying that it had no consequence.

Political protest is a process and not an event. Getting X numbers of people on a march doesn’t automatically mean that Y politician makes a Z decision. It doesn’t work like that. The anti-war protests of that time made the Blair government pay a higher political price for the war than they otherwise would have done. It shaped and changed British politics beyond that. Yes the war still happened and Tony Blair wasn’t put on trial in the Hague and so on – but in a subtler way politics was different.

Yet its impact could have been greater.

The Left

I’ve read a number of articles about how those on the left feel that the march was a pointless failure and how it lead to feelings of disappointment and disillusion etc. If some had entertained the idea that the march was going to be a step towards the revolution then they were bound to be disappointed.

One thing I remember thinking at the time — and I believe it still holds true today — was that the march was not about the left. Left-wing organisations may have been responsible for the logistics — I saw one website comment where someone was pointing out that the SWP contribution was the most efficiently organised (which I can well believe) — but the participation encompassed a whole spectrum of people. This was not a left-wing march — it was an anti-war march, and the Liberal Democrat participation was an important component of that. If it was a failure for the left then it has to be recognised that this is in part because the left failed to build upon the legacy of the march in the inclusive manner that would have made the most of the potential impact.

The Liberal Democrats

What was the impact of the ‘Stop The War’ march on the Liberal Democrats?

Do read Gareth Epps post on the Liberator blog;

I don’t always whole-heartedly agree with Gareth — but on this I am in almost complete agreement. He gives a picture of the events at the time that tally with my recollection, although he was obviously much closer to the action than I was. He also rightly praises the contribution made by Donnachadh McCarthy, James Graham, Martin Tod and “the usual combination of veteran campaigners and young Liberals coming up trumps”. I’d like to thank all those who were involved in arranging and organising the Liberal Democrat presence on the march who gave myself and many others the opportunity to feel the pride that we did that day.

The Curse of Reasonableness

Gareth talks about how Charles Kennedy’s nuanced policy approach to the Iraq war was proved right but how he also had to be “dragged, almost kicking and screaming, to the march”. Kennedy’s handling of the Iraq war issue was one of the better episodes of his leadership but the party as a whole was also right to push him into participation in the march. It is to his credit that he was ultimately prepared to make that jump.

This story should be better understood by the Party’s current leadership. We are often right on policy in part because our policy is nuanced. But a nuanced position can be difficult to campaign on. Too much nuance and your distinctive message can get lost. I have started to call this problem “the curse of reasonableness”.

To counteract this curse it is helpful to sometimes forget the complexities and take a stand in a simple and unequivocal way. And that might mean marching to say “no”. The current leadership need to understand this better and also appreciate that the party as a whole might have a better understanding than them of which issues to forget the nuance on, if they were only to listen.

It strikes me that the secret courts issue might be a good example of this.

Missed opportunity #1

Lets also remember that the Party’s anti-war stance at the time gave the Liberal Democrats a significant boost.

But again I think the impact could have been greater.

It wouldn’t have been that long after the march that I began to get frustrated by how the Liberal Democrats were failing to build on that anti-war stance. I remember telling some senior policy people how I thought one of the Party’s weaknesses was foreign policy — and getting a pretty surprised reaction.

What I wanted was for the Party to use the fact that we had people listening to us because of our position on the war to tell a wider story about how we saw Britain’s role in the world beyond Iraq. To develop a proper Liberal alternative to Blair’s liberal interventionism. Paddy Ashdown was saying some interesting things at the time, and to a lesser extent was Shirley Williams, but beyond that the opportunity was missed.

While I was disappointed then, Gareth is right to point out that things at the moment are much worse;

“Were fate and international events to throw up a parallel situation today, indeed, what might happen? The answer is far from clear, especially as, since their accession to government, the Liberal Democrats have scarcely discussed foreign policy at all and appear to have largely forgotten about the wider world.”

Aside from pursuing an agenda on Europe we appear to be uninterested in developing anything distinctive in our approach to foreign policy. The recent reshuffle that left no Liberal Democrat in the Foreign Office or the MoD has only exacerbated this.

Missed opportunity #2

Locally here in Luton the anti-war stance gave us, an all too short-lived, electoral boost. But more importantly it gave us an opportunity to begin to engage with our local Muslim community in a way that we had previously been unable to do. It also led to some significant new recruits, some direct from the Labour party, including Qurban Hussain who now sits on the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords.

This is a legacy of that time that lingers. Our local party remains much more representative of our community now than it was ten years ago. Yet can the same be said at a national level?

Again the 2003 anti-war stance made a diverse range of people interested in the party — and gave the party something to talk to them about — who wouldn’t have been interested otherwise. Was enough done to engage with them? Did we work on ways to turn support for us on this single issue into more widely based support? I am not sure. I feel this may have been another missed opportunity.

This has turned into a much longer post than intended, and I am not sure how to end it, so here are some photos from the 15th February 2003:

A tribute to Roy Davies

Cllr Roy Davies

Cllr Roy Davies

Those who have been involved in campaigns for the Liberal Democrats in Luton over the years will be sad to learn of the death of Councillor Roy Davies.

I served alongside Roy as part of the Liberal Democrat group during my eight years on Luton Borough Council and I want to pay tribute to the determination and commitment that he gave to the Party and the Town. He was a proper local councillor — someone whose top priority was to fight for the interests of the people of the area he represented.

Roy was also a stalwart of the Luton local party. For several decades he, along with his wife Jenny, formed the backbone of our local organisation. The archetypal image that I have in my head of a Luton election campaign is of visiting them at their home in Stopsley to find Jenny art-working Focus at her computer and Roy in another part of the house working a printer or tending a folding machine. When the Liberal Democrats have had success in Luton in the past a large part of that success would have been because of the work of Jenny and Roy.

My condolences to Jenny and his family.

More here:

The revised proposed new parliamentary boundaries for Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire

Boundary Commission revised proposals report for the Eastern region
As mentioned in my previous post I have finally got around to looking at the Boundary Commission’s revised proposals for their review of parliamentary constituencies for England. I appreciate that this is something of an academic exercise given that the row within the Coalition Government over House of Lords reform has resulted in a situation where Parliament is unlikely to approve these proposals. However, here are the details for the record.

The initial proposals for the Eastern Region, including the sub-region of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, where published in September 2011. You can read what I wrote about them at the time here:

After public consultation on these proposals the Commission published their revised recommendations in October 2012. These revised proposals do seem to me to be an improvement. Given the constraints that the Commission have had to work within, what they are now suggesting appears to work more coherently with the nature of Bedfordshire and so make better sense than the original.

The proposals

The proposals for changing Luton South and creating a new Luton North and Dunstable seat remain unchanged from the commission’s first report.

In the north Bedford would remain much as it is now with the addition of the Bromham ward to the West. The North Bedfordshire constituency becomes a do-nut around Bedford and takes in the whole of the northern end of the county — upwards from Potton and Biggleswade in the East and Ampthill in the west.

Despite its name returning in the revised proposals the old Mid Bedfordshire seat would still essentially disappear. Just under 30% of it go to make up the new North Beds seat and just under 40% of it, including Flitwick, Woburn and Harlington, go into a stretched South West Bedfordshire constituency. This seat loses Dunstable and is pulled northwards as far as Cranfield.

The remaining bits of the old Mid Beds seat (about 27% of it) as well as bits of the old North East Beds seat go to make up part of a new cross-county seat with parts of Hertfordshire. This includes the villages to north and north east of Luton (including Streatley, Barton-le-Clay, Silsoe, Shefford, Henlow, and Stotfold). This new Mid Bedfordshire and Harpenden constituency is made up of about 45% of the old Hitchin and Harpenden constituency. As well as containing Harpenden itself, it includes Wheathampstead, Kimpton, and the villages to the east of Luton. It also takes in the ward to the south of Luton and Dunstable, containing Caddington and Slip End, from the old South West Beds seat.

The rationale

It is the changes to Luton that are key to understanding the logic behind what the Commission has proposed for Bedfordshire, and they were also the most controversial.

The new tighter rules for how many voters a constituency has makes Luton too large to be a single constituency and too small to have two. So parts of of the town need to be combined with somewhere else to make the numbers work. The Commission have taken the view that the logical place to join with is the town of Dunstable.

Dunstable and North Luton are both urban areas that are part of the same conurbation. The border between the two crosses a continuous built up area. A stranger who travels across that boundary would be unlikely to realise that they have just moved between towns. The two towns share a transport network and other services — not least the Luton and Dunstable Hospital.

The alternatives are also poorer. The best of these, and the one that I thought we might end up with when this process started, would be to combine parts of the north of Luton with the town of Houghton Regis, which is also part of the conurbation. However, Houghton Regis is smaller than Dunstable and so this change would also require bringing in some more rural bits of the county — those villages to north of the urban area. However, the Commission have sought to avoid making mixed urban and rural constituencies when they can.

The other alternatives would require crossing the county boundary into Hertfordshire — either to pick up the villages to the East or, as some have suggested, extend a Luton South constituency further south and combining with Harpenden. Both of this have significant drawbacks.

Once the decision to combine Dunstable with north Luton has been made, alongside the approach to the north of the County, the knock on effects on the other constituencies are largely unavoidable. The Commission has adjusted, and I believe improved, the proposals but the essential impact on the centre and south west of Bedfordshire remains largely the same.

Fear and loathing in southern Bedfordshire

BedfordshireI had meant to post some more stuff here over the last couple of weeks but the reason why I have failed, other than being generally busy, was that I decided to write a quick post about the Boundary Commission’s revised recommendations for changing the parliamentary boundaries for Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire.

This was not a quick post.

In researching and writing it up I rather got lost in the subject. Which is a bit silly given the vote in parliament last week means that they are even less likely to be put in place than they were when the House of Lords reforms collapsed.

It is not so much the proposed boundaries themselves that I have got lost in, which are pretty straightforward once you’ve got your head around them, but the story that the report, the written submissions, and the transcript of the two days of public evidence, tells about how the different communities in southern Bedfordshire (or at least their elected representatives) see themselves and each other. It is a tale of identity, different ideas of urban and rural, party politics, misconceptions, genuine fears, and sadly I suspect lurking at the back of it is different forms of prejudice. It also provides evidence for the motivations behind many of the decisions that have taken place in local politics over recent years — much of them deeply irrational when looked at objectively. Most of this I was vaguely aware of — but now feel I should have understood better — and reading this has helped bring some clarity.

What I am talking about here, if you hadn’t already guessed, is how Luton is mistrusted — indeed to some extent feared — by its near neighbour Dunstable and the rural communities of south Bedfordshire. How important being “rural” is to those communities. And why the quite logical proposal to create a parliamentary constituency that combined Dunstable with the north of Luton generated such an extreme reaction from some.

This at least is the picture that the background papers to the Boundary Commission’s report gives us as presented at least by members of the local political class. How deeply this picture accurately reflects the views of the local population is an open question. Perhaps the controversy over the new boundaries might have given us some clues to this if it hadn’t been cut short by the bigger national controversy at Westminster.

As you can tell I have ended up with a much wider subject to talk about than the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies! A subject that may take me a while to do proper justice to.

But first the boundary proposals themselves…