Angela Rayner’s ‘gerrymandering’ plot to ensure Labour ‘dominates’ electoral map

has been accused of plotting to change the boundaries of local councils to absorb rural strongholds into larger authorities. In doing so, this would see some parts of England “dominated” by towns, it has been claimed.

Democratic control would be stripped away from wider counties, and and would find it harder to win in those areas as a result, it is feared. These include parts of the south west of England, as well as the Midlands, Cambridge, Oxford, Kent and the Peak District.

Gawain Towler, former advisor of 20 years at UKIP and the Party, has expressed his concern for the impact it would have in Devon and neighbouring Cornwall.

The Government’s White Paper stated in December that Devon and Torbay would become a non-mayoral County Combined Authority (CCA), while ministers are working on a county deal for the neighbouring Cornwall Council.

In Devon, there is a fear that the move would diminish local representation. It would mean the county council and the area’s eight district councils fusing into one authority.

Also currently operating separately are Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council.

Mr Towler told that the changes would see rural areas “dominated by Labour controlled Plymouth and Exeter”. Plymouth city council has 42 Labour councillors. The are second with seven.

Exeter City Council has 23 Labour councillors. Next is the Green Party on seven.

The former spin doctor added: “The bigger the area, the more power urban areas have over rural areas.

“This is gerrymandering to assist the new Labour estate – the universit[ies], the civil service, the state funded, over rural areas.

“It’s the last step in a long, long continuum of the removal of democratic control from the rural areas to the urban areas.”

He also suggested that the changes would give the “new Labour block vote” in areas such as Canterbury, Cambridge, and Oxford, Labour supporting places, more power over Tory voting and small-c conservative areas.

“It is basically stripping democratic control from the counties to the towns,” Mr Towler concluded.

The former Conservative MP for High Peak, Robert Largan, is campaigning against the prospect of his former Derbyshire constituency being absorbed by Greater Manchester. Mr Largan claims there is “overwhelming opposition” from locals.

He added that the proposal would lead to “urban sprawl” in the Peak District, and people are “concerned about the implications of competing with residents from across Greater Manchester for council housing, which is already in short supply”.

The future of local facilities, owned by Derbyshire NHS, East Midlands Ambulance Service, Derbyshire Constabulary and Derbyshire Fire and Rescue, is also feared for, the former MP said.

He added: “Many residents feel this is about the new Labour MP currying favour with (who is a Tameside MP) and attempts to lock High Peak into permanent Labour control in Greater Manchester.

“People feel that they are being completely ignored and that nobody voted for these changes which may be imposed upon them by London.”

High Peak’s new MP Jon Pearce said: “Robert Largan and Derbyshire are just the latest members of the self preservation society. It is good that Robert Largan has finally admitted what we all knew, his only interest is his own chances of getting re-elected.”

He added: “Derbyshire have submitted a proposal for a whole Derbyshire unitary, covering 800,000 people and they have asked for the local election in May to be scrapped.

“High Peak would have a 10% say in such a council and we would inevitably end up continuing to be the poor relations and forgotten about.

Mr Pearce then set out his argument for absorption. He said: “For too long High Peak has been the first place to suffer cuts and the last place to get investment… The reality is parts of High Peak are north of Sheffield, but we are not in the Northern Powerhouse and all the opportunities for investment and jobs that could bring.

“When you look at key economic indicators and public service delivery, like travel to work areas, NHS services and further education, all of High Peak looks North and mainly towards Greater Manchester rather than the East Midlands and Derby and Nottingham.”

Tory shadow local government secretary Kevin Hollinrake called the reforms a “Whitehall top down diktat”.

He added: “ support greater joint working and stronger local accountability through directly elected leaders.

“But there are many ways to do this, and local government should be ‘local’ to residents, and respect local identities.”

Mr Hollinrake went on to say that the process “should be considered in slower time”, and with “proper and open consultation”.

The Liberal Democrat leader of Hinckley and Bosworth District Council in Leicestershire – which is not included in the new East Midlands Combined Authority – Councillor Stuart Bray said in all areas of the county residents would have fewer councillors representing more local people.

“This is undemocratic,” he fumed. “District councils have a closer understanding of our communities, our businesses know us – this will disappear under plans for single large county unitaries.

“England is already one of the most undemocratically served countries in Europe with the largest councils and fewest elected representatives per head of population.”

Cllr Bray added: “With fewer staff covering vast and very diverse areas and fewer local councillors there will inevitably be large impacts on residents.” He added that it certainly looks as if Labour is attempting to gerrymander.

When asked what he would say to Ms Rayner, the councillor said he would ask: “Do you believe in the importance of local places and their communities and effective democratic representation?

“If so, do you truly realise the enormous impact your proposals for LGR in the Devolution White Paper will have on local government, and the dedicated public servants who work in it and local councillors who serve their communities?”

The Tory MP for Mid Leicestershire, Peter Bedford, referred to his letter to Councillor Deborah Taylor, Leicestershire County Council Deputy Leader. He wrote: “For many years I have supported the idea of a full County Unitary Authority for Leicestershire, as I believe it would create a leaner, more efficient local government structure for Leicestershire residents.

“However, I cannot in good conscience support any moves by Government to carve out Mid Leicestershire villages such as: Glenfield, LFE, Anstey, Birstall, and Braunstone Town and place them within the boundaries of the City.

“Mid Leicestershire residents are county residents and I shall be vociferously campaigning to ensure that they remain so.”

A spokesperson for the Reform Party said the Government is trying to “gerrymander the new unitary authorities”.

They added: “We are going to see historic counties ripped apart in favour of a new system that negatively impacts rural areas and smaller towns and villages.”

Ms Rayner told MPs on Wednesday that she has invited all two tier areas to send proposals for their conversion into unitary authorities. She added that these are the “right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks”.

The deputy prime minister attempt to assure the House of Commons that proposals would be developed with “extensive” local engagement with communities, and claimed that district councillors had told her that “the two tier system isn’t working” after 14 years of a Conservative “doom loop”.

Ms Rayner added: “While devolution can sound techie, the outcome is simple – it’s a plan for putting more money in people’s pockets, it’s a plan for quicker, better, cheaper transport designed with local people in mind, a plan for putting politics back in the service of working people.”

She also confirmed that local elections for the following areas are to be postponed for a year:

• Norfolk County Council

• Suffolk County Council

• Essex County Council

• Thurrock

• East Sussex

• West Sussex

• Hampshire

• Isle of Wight

• Surrey

This is because, as ‘s deputy claimed, holding them would be an “irresponsible waste of money” due to the fact that it is likely that some bodies “won’t exist” after changes.