Our recent experience with both the Parliamentary and the Local Government Boundary Commission clearly indicates that there should be a review - at the very least – of their criteria and their ways of working.

One of the principal points should be to ensure that they work in tandem because the recent reviews in our area have provided nothing but confusion and quite unnecessary changes that serve no useful purpose in a democratic sense.

The decision of the Parliamentary Commission to remove Ainsdale from Southport, where it has been part of the Town since 1885, defies any logic and bringing in some areas from the north of the Town with whom we have no relationship at all is going to result in Southport actually being represented by two Members of Parliament and they in turn will have to deal with 5 separate Councils whereas the present system clearly reflects long established community interests and clearly identifiable boundaries.

By way of example, because there will no longer be terminosity between the Parliamentary and Local Government boundaries in Southport two different sets of Councillors and two MP’s will have to deal with Sefton Council, Lancashire County Council and the District Councils in Lancashire and with whom we have had no discernible connection and have little in common.

The situation with the Local Government Commission brings another level of confusion because there is only one Ward in Sefton that does not meet the criteria for the number of electors, but the margin is only about 4%, and the boundaries of this one Ward could easily have been altered to take this into account if it was thought to have been of such significance to make a change.

What is very clear is that there isn’t the slightest justification to hold what are known as ‘all-out’ elections for every Ward In Sefton in 2026 and this is both confusing to the public and should only happen when there are overriding reasons for doing so and these do not apply at the moment.

The system is also very unfair on councillors and candidates because it means – for example – that councillors elected last week will have a 2 year, not a 4 year, term and in the all- out elections successful candidates will have terms 1, 3 or 4 years depending on where they come in terms of voting numbers and there is often only a handful of votes between those elected.

I understand that both the Parliamentary Commission and the Local Government Commission do not work in tandem and do not consider the impact of whatever they may propose on each other and this lack of co-ordination is again a recipe for confusion and does actually involve a loss of democratic accountability.

The decision by the Local Government Commission to state at the outset that not making any changes was not going to be an option and such a pre-emptive statement was not helpful and stating in their conclusions that they agreed with the proposals put forward by the Labour Party in particular was not a good idea.

There was always tension between both Commissions and all the Political Parties because whilst the Commissions have a clear remit that they must not take into account, under any circumstances, potential political changes to the advantage or disadvantage of any Party is obviously in direct contrast to the approach adopted by the Political Parties who in turn use this as their sole criteria.

I consider therefore that a review of both the structure and the process of both Commissions are long overdue and there seems to be a very strong element of them seeking to justify their own existence by bringing about changes that are not justified when using any objective criteria and most importantly a greater degree of community cohesion which is a critical element in any area.

Councillor Sir Ron Watson CBE
Dukes Ward Councillor
Sefton Council

It isn't removing Ainsdale from southport, just the parliamentary constituency of Southport, there is a big difference.

It's his party that has done it, he should be moaning to Tory Central Office.