This week’s announcement about proposed parliamentary boundary changes raises more questions than answers.

The attempt to balance voter numbers and oust 50 MPs seems severe — only five constituencies in the Yorkshire and Humber region remain unscathed.

And the geography of some boundary lines are surprising.

Even Keighley and Ilkley MP Kris Hopkins was left, in his own words, “bemused”.

For some long-standing politicians, the threat to their livelihood is serious.

Shipley MP Philip Davies, who has supported the battle against new housing developments in Menston, now faces the prospect of losing his job, while others could go head-to-head with Westminster colleagues for new seats.

Other voting areas will encompass a hybrid of local authorities with the potential to cause confusion. Despite this, there must be some strands of logic in the plans.

Some will see common sense in the creation of a new Guiseley and Yeadon constituency, separating it from the bedsits of university land.

The acquisition of Bingley into the Keighley and Ilkley constituency may also suit some, although the loss of its Worth Valley Ward will upset others. What is clear is that any central government meddling in local identity is historically an irritant.

Open a paper from a 100 years ago and there is likely to be a dispute over a constituency or a boundary line. Allegiances do not automatically follow, no matter what boundaries are imposed.

It remains to be seen then whether the country is to benefit from a fairer voting system and fewer MPs.

The worry now is that more serious change could be trickling down to local authority level, in order to save yet more funds.

As one Ilkley councillor has already mentioned, these proposals might be a sign of more change to come.

If so, we can expect more skirmishes over boundary lines.