UNFAIR DIVISION OF SHIREBROOK

If you look at the political map of Shirebrook, you’ll quickly notice a strange, tiny ward at the very top of our town. It’s called ‘Shirebrook-Langwith Ward’, and I’m starting to have a problem with it. Before we move on, please look at this map:

It’s hard not to notice, right? Another thing you probably haven’t noticed — but I have — is Labour’s habit of placing their “leaders” there as candidates. I won’t mention their names; you can check for yourself. Don’t be surprised if you spot the usual suspects.

Since I’ve been monitoring elections in this town, nobody apart from the “big names” from Labour has stood as a candidate there. As a result, their candidates — often registered at addresses nowhere near that ward — have been winning by default. The bottom line is this: residents of Shirebrook-Langwith Ward haven’t had a genuine choice about who represents them on the Town Council for years. Labour’s ‘leadership’ has been making that choice on their behalf, with the rest of the political parties indifferent and apathetic.

TEMPTING CHOICE
I’ll admit it: for a moment, I was tempted to run there in the last election. But I’m a man with a moral backbone, and ‘jumping’ from ward to ward to win an easier race is entirely against my values. Still, the idea of delivering leaflets to the entire ward in two or maybe three hours was very tempting.

Because let’s be honest: a campaigner with such a manageable area can be highly effective. Knocking on a few hundred doors? Absolutely doable. But knocking on several thousand doors in Shirebrook South Ward within the limits of the official election campaign? Mission impossible — I’ve tried. I would need to start in January to cover this vast area with the care and dedication its residents deserve.

TIME IS THE SCARCEST RESOURCE IN THE WORLD
Delivering leaflets in the Leen Valley Drive area alone took me five hours — and that’s just one of many sections in my South ward. Add three hours for Bracken Road, five to six for Meadow View, ten to twelve for Model Village, three for the area around Lidl, three for Main Street… The list goes on and on. Independent candidates have no chance to conduct a proper, effective campaign on such a large scale.

That’s why a candidate running in this “mini-ward” has a massive advantage over every candidate in the other areas. I have to run around half the town like a headless chicken while they have just two streets to cover. And that’s the first sign that this division of the town is unfair.

ACCORDING TO MY EXPERIENCE…
Over the last few years, I’ve developed a complete system for delivering leaflets: separate maps, separate routes, time-scheduling for different categories of housing. Thanks to that experience, I can now say with complete confidence: our town is divided in a way that is unintuitive, unfair, and — in practice — gerrymandered.

SHIREBROOK IS GERRYMANDERED
Not in the American sense, obviously, but in the sense that the structure of this division affects who realistically has a chance to win. It reduces the chances of independent candidates while increasing the chances of big political organisations. Coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidences of that kind. It’s as if someone created that map to benefit a big political party and make a successful run impossible for individual candidates or members of smaller organisations.

At the same time, there is one super-small ward where leaders of big organisations, with name recognition and resources, can show “real” care if the electoral situation requires it. It never did, but still: it’s not fair to the residents and all candidates in other wards.

FAIRNESS & REPRESENTATION ANALYSIS
Shirebrook North and South are almost perfectly balanced — both have around 3,500 electors. Their councillors represent roughly 500 people each. Meanwhile, a Langwith councillor represents only 365 people. That’s 37% fewer electors per councillor — a massive, structural over-representation.

If you live in Langwith, your vote weighs significantly more. If you live in Shirebrook, your vote weighs significantly less. To put it bluntly: a vote in Langwith is worth 37% more than a vote in Shirebrook.

HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM
That imbalance was created long before anyone built Meadow View, Aster Road, Kernel Way, or the 330 new houses that add an estimated 500 new electors to Shirebrook South. The newly opened Pleasley View residential area has only increased the imbalance. Bolsover’s numbers are simply outdated because the town has grown — a lot. And almost all of that growth is in South Ward, with no infrastructure investment. Can you tell me one thing built by the council for the community in the South Ward? One!

THE BOTTOM LINE
For years, I suspected the division was unfair — but only now do I have the hard data confirming it. Some wards are overloaded, others are privileged. Some candidates have to work four times as hard; others have the campaign served to them on a plate. Some wards get all the money – South gets nothing.

It’s not healthy. It’s not fair. And — most importantly — it’s not democratic.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN?
The solution is obvious: Shirebrook needs a boundary review. The current ward structure is outdated, unfair, and no longer reflects the reality of our growing town. Whether that means redistributing the wards into smaller, more manageable units or adjusting the number of councillors per ward, the status quo cannot continue.

This isn’t something I can change alone – it requires pressure on Bolsover District Council to request a review from the Local Government Boundary Commission. But first, we need to acknowledge the problem exists.

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com