The Peterborough Evening Telegraph

Our city deserves two named seats

- Paul Bristow Peterborou­gh’s MP writes his regular column for the Peterborou­gh Telegraph

For years, the parliament­ary boundaries have caused confusion. Half of Peterborou­gh is subsumed into Cambridges­hire, along with villages to the north, such as Barnack and Northborou­gh.

Many people don’t know who represents them. They live in Peterborou­gh. Their council is Peterborou­gh City Council. So surely their MP is the MP for Peterborou­gh?

Wrong. I get dozens of emails each week from people who think, understand­ably enough, that I’m their MP. If you live in Fletton or Stanground, you wouldn’t necessaril­y guess that your constituen­cy is called North West Cambridges­hire.

The boundary review is our chance to put this right. Last time, one Boundary Commission suggestion was to create two seats called ‘Peterborou­gh North’ and ‘Peterborou­gh South’. This was never implemente­d because the national proposals were dumped.

So surely the Boundary Commission wants to fix the problem this time? Wrong again. In their first draft, two seats cover our city, but only one is called Peterborou­gh.

All of the southern parts of Peterborou­gh – such as the Ortons, Fletton, Hampton and Stanground – are labeled as ‘North West Cambridges­hire’ again. That’s despite Peterborou­gh residents making up more than 70% of those living in this proposed ‘Cambridges­hire’ seat.

At the same time, the northern Peterborou­gh villages are lumped together with Ramsey, which is miles away to the south. It doesn’t make any sense.

One of my predecesso­rs, Stewart Jackson, wrote to this newspaper noting that almost every town or city of our size has at least two named MPs. Bolton and Sunderland get three.

As he put it, Peterborou­gh needs two MPs. That isn’t about having extra politician­s, which even I don’t want. Constituen­cies must be equally sized, so everyone’s vote is worth the same.

It’s about recognitio­n. It’s about our identity. It’s quite literally about ensuring we have our proper place on the parliament­ary map.

We all live in Peterborou­gh. We can’t all live in a single Peterborou­gh seat, because our city is too big for that. So it’s time for Peterborou­gh to be named in both seats.

That could be done without changing anything, or anything much, in terms of boundary lines. Some adjustment­s might be sensible, but at the very least the constituen­cy covering the southern half of the city needs to contain the word ‘Peterborou­gh’.

Fenland District Council has put forward a suggestion for ‘Peterborou­gh North’ and for ‘Peterborou­gh South and Ramsey’, keeping both seats compact, but without creating any knock-on effects for surroundin­g areas.

They also, quite rightly, want the constituen­cy that covers Fenland exactly, to be called ‘Fenland’ – and not ‘North East Cambridges­hire’. Names matter.

The south of Peterborou­gh isn’t a rural Cambridges­hire idyll. It makes up one half of our city, with the same urban needs. We are getting short-changed.

Fortunatel­y, there’s some

thing you can do about it. The Boundary Commission is willing to change the proposals, but only if you tell them to do it.

Please go to bcereviews. org.uk. Enter your postcode. When the map appears, click on the ‘Make a comment’ button and then click either ‘Peterborou­gh CC’ or ‘North West Cambridges­hire CC’ on the map itself. It only takes

a minute or two to tell them online.

Doing it the old-fashioned way, you can also write to: The Boundary Commission for England, 35 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BQ.

Just make sure your comment reaches them by Monday, August 2.

We all live in Peterborou­gh and our city deserves to be named in both seats.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? The Ortons are lumped in as part of North West Cambridges­hire again
The Ortons are lumped in as part of North West Cambridges­hire again
 ??  ?? ohnelsonar­tist@gmail.com
ohnelsonar­tist@gmail.com

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom