Boundary Changes

It seems the boundary reviews are taking the attention of Conservative Councillors of late with many jumping over themselves to declare how municipal identity is being eroded by the Boundary Commission proposals.

The proposals which come as a direct result of Cameron Conservative meddling in the number of MPs have led to movements of several wards in Medway.

The independent boundary commission result, though never ideal because of the required size of constituencies, is on balance a sensible outcome.

It is therefore ironic that Cameron's proposal have led to what can only be described as a desperate scrabble by Medway Conservatives to try and gerrymander, and it is gerrymander, the independent proposal into something which guarantees the return of Conservative MPs; at direct expense of the people of Medway.

I have been particularly interested to read and listen to the core arguments of Conservatives, which are essientially based on loose historical and economic affiliation between neighbourhoods.

The Tory argument is primarily based on local identity and affiliation but that is also the biggest flaw in that same position. Not only because it exposes them for the pure partisan instincts they pretend to stand above, but it also fundamentally misunderstands what a constituency has become.

The current constituencies so lamented by Tories as a paradigm of identity are arguably poorly constructed. It isnt just that people living in Chatham Dockyard and Brompton have voted for the MP in Rochester & Strood. It isnt just that the people of Aylesford have arguably nothing to do with the people of Chatham, and vice versa. Or, indeed, that those in Halling and Cuxton have very different concerns to those in Hoo or Horsted.

We currently have an imperfect situation which is not actually related to identity in its strict sense. Our existing constituencies are fundamentally imperfect constructs which are only loosely related to shared historical relations

Another argument I have read is about shared services; but that argument is also flawed. People dont just eat in restaurants and shops that happen to be within the constituency. A person in Chatham may share an Asda with that of Rochester. A person in Rochester East who has a below average income may share the same social problems of those in Luton & Wayfield in the same income bracket; though they sit in different areas the problems they have are not based or even identified by those with those problems on artificial Parliamentary boundaries. If any, the identity is based on local authority, but even that only impacts on issues of direct reciprocation.

The Tory position is an exagerated artificial political construct which ignores issues of socio-economic status, culture and religion. Indeed its categorisation purely on the basis of local geographical affiliation is flawed.

Chatham & Aylesford epitomises that point; two utterly different areas merged into one... two areas with two different Council arrangements, transport and local geography. They share very little with each other but they have been placed together because of political imperatives

Constituencies are now of such a size across the United Kingdom that they are more like a collection of areas as opposed to those with a geographical or political affiliation with each other (with a few notable exeptions like the Isle of White). The spread of technology, transport and the scalibility of distance has left the Medway Tory argument exposed as out of its time.

The Tory arguments about Boundaries are therefore not really about shared schooling, vet services and retail facilities, it is simply and purely a reflection of partisan conivance for the political gerrymander they seek, and nothing more. This is not about shared identity, because even if there was such a thing in an area, they are happy to ignore the identities of those who happen to vote the right way... Aylesford linked with Chatham?.

The objections are therefore politically convenient and contrived. They ignore much larger identity differences for the sake of electoral gain. Pure and simple.

The Labour position is to support the independent recommendations as imperfect but the best outcome, we take a natural argument over our pooled identity to rename constituencies to the idea espoused below by Councillor Jarrett.

This position is not unique and can be seen across the country; from Liverpool, Portsmouth, Norwich, Sunderland, Newcastle and many other areas of the UK represented by Labour, Conservatives, Liberals and independents.

The below is from Medway Conservative, Deputy Leader Alan Jarrett;

"There are many benefits to be gained from city status. It would bring greater and wider recognition to Medway and as such would do even more to put us firmly on the national and international map.

There are financial benefits that can flow from this, and you only have to ask other towns which have achieved this accolade in the recent past to realise that it is not something to be taken lightly.Wolverhampton and Brighton - to name but two - have seen big improvements since becoming cities.Of course there will be those who disagree.

Certainly some have expressed concerns that our five towns - Strood, Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham and Rainham - will lose their identities. But this has not happened since the formation of Medway as a municipal area 13 years ago.

Then there are those that say that Medway is not a place but a river. It is, of course, both. The Medway Towns has long been recognised as an area and increasingly over the years Medway has achieved that same recognition.

The widespread acceptance of Medway as a place is now palpable. Even this newspaper has long since rightly adopted the name. Paradoxically some of those opposing Medway as a city also use the name Medway in their own title!"

The Tory boundary change arguments are not only incoherent, vacuous and without historical merit they also do the exact opposite of what they preach. Medway is either accepted as a place that 'is now palpable' or it is not.

The creation of three renamed constituencies is actually a consistent and fair position that accepts the political imposed realities of constituency size and our future aspiration to be a true city.

It accepts the independent recommendations of non-partisan actors but it also seeks to re-affirm the position of both administration and opposition that our shared identity as a place is in Medway.

It is time Tories stopped playing partisan games with the boundaries; accept the independent recommendations and move on.