Author |
Message |
![Top of page](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/tree_m.gif)
Barbara
| Posted on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 10:56 am: | |
Why must Shoreham go in with Otford. Otford is a very different place and with Otford being so much bigger it will be difficult for a local Shoreham candidate to get in. |
![Top of page](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](http://www.whra.org.uk/per2000/icons/tree_m.gif)
Neil
| Posted on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 11:25 am: | |
The current situation is that the Shoreham District Councillor has 32% less voters than the average for Sevenoaks District Council - so something needs to be done. How about this as a suggestion....... The whole Shoreham Parish has 1603 (1101 in the current Shoreham Ward and 502 in the Badgers Mount Ward) and with a quota for the new scheme being 1596 this would equate to the Shoreham District Councillor having 0.4% too many voters. This is an ideal fit with the new scheme. |
|