Agenda item

Hands Off Southport and Ainsdale - A response to the Boundary Commission

It was moved by Councillor Myers, seconded by Councillor Doyle that:

The Boundary Commission has admitted that the radical changes it has proposed for Southport constituency are not justified in terms of the electorate.

Instead, it tries to explain them by claiming they will “...better respect both local ties and the boundaries of existing constituencies...".

They intend to cleave away Ainsdale, an area with very close ties to Southport, and replace it with various bits of the current South Ribble constituency which simply do not have anywhere near the same connection to our town. To add a further layer of confusion, they also lie under another council's authority.

As two councillors elected in Southport, one of whom lives in Ainsdale, we say that the Commission's claim is hogwash and an insult to the intelligence of local residents and representatives.

Ainsdale is a close and much-loved part of the local community here. Southport Town boundary actually lies in Ainsdale. It's a coastal community, as is Southport. It's one of our treasured villages.

Administratively, it's been linked with Birkdale, another of our lovely villages, since 1894 and both then joined Southport as a county borough in 1912. It is part of us.

As nice as they are, three of the four areas the Boundary Commission intends to replace Ainsdale with are quite separate and distinct from our town here. 

There is no justification for trying to claim that wards such as Rufford, Hesketh with Becconsall or Tarleton have anything like the local ties to Southport that Ainsdale does. Only North Meols (Banks) comes remotely close to being justified on these terms. 

Let us be clear, these changes do not better respect local ties - they sever them. 

Ainsdale must remain part of Southport constituency or it is painfully obvious that both are being sacrificed on the altar of expediency by the Boundary Commission. An integral part of us should not be torn away simply because it makes life easier for others.

We move that Sefton Council rejects in the strongest possible terms the Boundary Commission's plan to remove Ainsdale from Southport constituency. Also, that it also writes to the Commission making clear our opposition as outlined above and that it asks the Commission to explain exactly how it comes to believe that the wards it is proposing to introduce at Ainsdale's expense have stronger ties to Southport.  

Following a debate and on a show of hands the Mayor declared the Motion to be carried by 45 votes to 2 with 5 abstentions and it was:

RESOLVED:           That:

The Boundary Commission has admitted that the radical changes it has proposed for Southport constituency are not justified in terms of the electorate.

Instead, it tries to explain them by claiming they will “...better respect both local ties and the boundaries of existing constituencies...".

They intend to cleave away Ainsdale, an area with very close ties to Southport, and replace it with various bits of the current South Ribble constituency which simply do not have anywhere near the same connection to our town. To add a further layer of confusion, they also lie under another council's authority.

As two councillors elected in Southport, one of whom lives in Ainsdale, we say that the Commission's claim is hogwash and an insult to the intelligence of local residents and representatives.

Ainsdale is a close and much-loved part of the local community here. Southport Town boundary actually lies in Ainsdale. It's a coastal community, as is Southport. It's one of our treasured villages.

Administratively, it's been linked with Birkdale, another of our lovely villages, since 1894 and both then joined Southport as a county borough in 1912. It is part of us.

As nice as they are, three of the four areas the Boundary Commission intends to replace Ainsdale with are quite separate and distinct from our town here. 

There is no justification for trying to claim that wards such as Rufford, Hesketh with Becconsall or Tarleton have anything like the local ties to Southport that Ainsdale does. Only North Meols (Banks) comes remotely close to being justified on these terms. 

Let us be clear, these changes do not better respect local ties - they sever them. 

Ainsdale must remain part of Southport constituency or it is painfully obvious that both are being sacrificed on the altar of expediency by the Boundary Commission. An integral part of us should not be torn away simply because it makes life easier for others.

We move that Sefton Council rejects in the strongest possible terms the Boundary Commission's plan to remove Ainsdale from Southport constituency. Also, that it also writes to the Commission making clear our opposition as outlined above and that it asks the Commission to explain exactly how it comes to believe that the wards it is proposing to introduce at Ainsdale's expense have stronger ties to Southport.