Submission to Boundary Commission for England Consultation ending 5th December 2011

On 2nd December 2011 I submitted the proposal below to the Boundary Review 2013 consultation. As contributions will not be published until the Spring, I have chosen to publish mine now, but as I do not have permission to publish maps, some of the files referred to are not included here. My spreadsheet nevertheless contains all the information.


Introduction

I am an ordinary member of the public with an interest in local communities and representational democracy. I am not a member of any political party and tend in recent years to be very much a floating voter. I consider all the candidates and a range of issues but often tend towards a preference for independent candidates if suitable ones are standing in an election. The reasons for my proposals are not dependent on any party politics.

I gave a presentation (see NickyDavisPresentationToBCE.ppt attached) at the boundary hearing in Stafford on Monday 14th November, but also opt to provide this more detailed written submission. In providing this I note that as well as a submission for the attention of the Boundary Commission, as part of the ongoing consultation it will be read by other people, so I bear in mind other audiences in making this submission. I have made a minor change in my proposals since the boundary hearing, which I explain later.

I live in Trentham in Stoke-on-Trent and I am providing an alternative proposal for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region of the West Midlands region only.

General views on MPs and ward boundaries

As a grass roots democrat I actually disagree with the reduction in MPs being inflicted on us by the current government; I think democracy is better served by maximising involvement and devolution. However the act of parliament requires the reduction so I would rather express a view on how the constituencies are reorganised than not.

I also disagree with the reduction in Stoke-on-Trent, prior to this year’s elections, in the number of councillors, the scrapping of elections by thirds (local votes 3 years out of 4) and replacement with whole council elections (only 1 year out of 4) and the accompanying ward boundary changes from 3 member wards throughout to a haphazard mess of 1,2 and 3 member wards. This was inflicted on Stoke-on-Trent by the previous government. They imposed an unelected governance commission to dictate to the city, followed by an unelected transition board, the purpose of which seemed to me to be to reduce the democratic contribution of local people.

Despite the legitimate council vote not to move to whole council elections, the previous government used the dictatorial Local Government Act 2000 to force whole council elections on us. Then the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) was brought in to complete the ward boundary mess and slash the number of councillors from 60 to 44. Atrociously this also cut short by 1 year the legitimate 4 year mandate of 20 of our councillors, denying those councillors and the public who elected them decent democratic rights.

It was clear to me from the LGBCE consultation:

http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/west-midlands/staffordshire/stoke-on-trent-electoral-review

that almost everyone preferred a uniform system with the same number of councillors per ward across the city and that most ordinary people preferred this to be 2 member wards at least. This is not what the LGBCE decided.

I was one of the constituents who went to see my MP, Rob Flello, to ask him to pray against the LGBCE result in parliament, but he wouldn't, despite previously saying he thought Stoke-on-Trent needs 80 councillors. Politicians may pretend they want more public engagement, but reducing our voting rights contradicts this.

The reason this discussion of ward boundaries has some small relevance is that I don’t particularly mind the fact that the current constituency boundary review has regard to the 2010 ward boundaries rather than the 2011 ward boundaries. I have no affinity with the 2011 system or boundaries and I certainly don’t like the undemocratic way these were brought about in Stoke-on-Trent. In any case the rules require that the 2010 wards are used. It is a little inconsistent that the electorate numbers used are the 2011 election numbers, that didn’t apply in the 2010 election using the 2010 wards, but it does not make much difference and my proposals work with either the 2011 or 2010 electorate figures. In any case, again the rules require the 2011 numbers to be used.

Numbers

Following a parliamentary decision, the number of MPs in the UK has to be reduced from 650 to 600 giving an average UK electoral quota of 76,641. In England a reduction from 533 to 502 constituencies is required, of which 2 must be for the Isle of Wight. 54 constituencies are needed for the West Midlands region as used for the European elections. This is divided into sub-regions including one for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to have 11 constituencies. With a total electorate of 841,133, this means an average of 76,467 each. The act of parliament requires the electorate in a constituency must not be more than 5% different from the UK quota. Each constituency must therefore have an electorate between 72,810 and 80,473.

I agree with the definition of the regions and sub-regions and approve of the use of the West Midlands region and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-regions with these boundaries not being crossed. The constituency numbers are appropriate given the demands of the act of parliament.

I agree with the principle of electoral equality although it can be appreciated that elected representatives do in practice have dealings with the entire population in their constituency or ward, not just the electorate. I think that the constraint for the electorate to be within 5% of the UK quota is quite tight and may prevent the most appropriate boundaries being defined in some cases, particularly in areas where large wards are in place and the aim is not to split these. We must nevertheless endeavour to do the best possible to respect community links. I personally think 10% would have been a better margin for variation but the act of parliament must be followed.

Ethos and methodology

My approach has been to put the greatest emphasis on local communities, geography, current and historical links and a strong emphasis on trying to match constituencies with local authorities. My reasoning is that I think this structure focuses on the issues that affect people’s lives locally and in an ideal world would feed ideas from the grass roots via the MPs to influence policy in parliament. Of course we don’t live in an ideal world but we can strive to do the best we can in that direction.

I don't regard matching the new constituencies with existing ones as that important. Indeed, with the reduction in MPs there is little point trying to retain existing constituencies as that is logically destined to fail. If a future review were only changing boundaries in order to balance electorate numbers, whilst retaining the same number of MPs, then I think regard to the previous constituency boundaries would have much more relevance and a minimal change to achieve electoral equality would be desirable. But given that in the current review the number of constituencies must be reduced, requiring significant changes, I put a much higher priority on the opportunity to match constituencies with local authorities as much as possible.

I can understand how the changes are disruptive to MPs if they think they are likely to be selected and elected again, but it was the MPs collectively who decided we should have this boundary review. Also whilst I can see MPs may wish to define constituencies that suit them personally, where that differs from the wishes of local communities ordinary people should take priority and knock on effects need also to be considered. From an ordinary person’s point of view, our existing MP may not decide to stand again in the area, may not be selected by their party, or may even not be elected again, so there is no guarantee of continuity anyway. Given these factors I think a focus on local links and local authorities is appropriate.

As a resident in the area I have the advantages of local knowledge and that I can focus on detailed links for this one small area. Other local people can provide similar input. In comparison the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) has to consider the whole of England and did not consult to discover local views on the boundaries prior to publishing initial proposals. The current consultation therefore is where interested local people such as myself can help the BCE arrive at more appropriate proposals based on local views.

I am strongly of the view that the BCE should choose local proposals such as mine in preference to their initial proposals, because local people should define such issues, according to my grass roots philosophy anyway. The BCE is useful for collating, publishing and facilitating compromise amongst local views and for making decisions in areas where there is little local interest.

I am not myself dismissive of other local views I have heard about, but at this stage of the consultation the focus is meant to be on comparing our individual proposals with the BCE initial proposals. When all our consultation contributions are published we will be able to access a comprehensive set of local views and at that stage will have the opportunity to comment on each other’s proposals.

Comparison of my current proposals with those I presented at Stafford

The only changes I have made since the Stafford hearing are to my proposed Newcastle-under-Lyme and West Staffordshire constituencies.

Although I am aware I have not yet heard a comprehensive set of views, those I heard during the short time at Stafford and have heard elsewhere led me to review my proposals. Three issues I particularly considered were; community links between Northern wards of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent local authorities, the lack of strong links between Western Newcastle-under-Lyme wards and Northern Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent wards and the strength of links between Clayton and Seabridge wards with neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme wards.

I could not find any neat alternative way to divide the Stoke-on-Trent wards between constituencies than the one I had originally deduced. The main difficulty is that the wards are large so there are not many sensible ways to do this. I therefore decided not to propose combining Northern Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent wards because I consider a sensible arrangement of the 6 towns within two Stoke-on-Trent wards to be of greater importance.

The changes I have made do address the other two issues though, by placing Clayton and Seabridge in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Halmerend and Audley and Bignall End in West Staffordshire. I like this result better than my previous proposals because it concentrates the more urban wards largely in Newcastle-under-Lyme and the more rural wards largely in West Staffordshire.

Comparison of my proposals with the BCE initial proposals

There are substantial areas of agreement between my proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region and the BCE initial proposals.

Please refer to the files attached for my proposals:

• NickyDavisFinalMap.pdf for the constituency map.
• NickyDavisMapKey.pdf adds notes to the map.
• BoundaryReview2013NickyDavis3.xls for details on the numbers.

Numbers details are also available at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdFRyNm94ODg0WWQ4aG5zWTNYanJQcFE

The BCE initial proposals are of course at:

http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/whats-proposed/west-midlands/staffordshire-and-stoke-on-trent/

and further BCE numbers details are given at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdG8xXzI1Z1VpQmtZR19aXzlSM0NSenc&hl=en_GB#gid=0

I am strongly in favour of the well defined Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region outer boundary, in agreement with the BCE.

With a view to community identity and links and the aim of matching constituencies with local authorities, of the 9 local authorities in the Staffordshire area, 3, Cannock Chase, Lichfield and Staffordshire Moorlands, have electorate in the correct range to neatly become constituencies.

Geography of the sub-region makes it impossible to have Lichfield local authority as a constituency because Tamworth would be too small. However it is possible to define Staffordshire Moorlands and Cannock Chase local authority areas as constituencies, so I am strongly in favour of these and have incorporated them in my proposals in agreement with the BCE.

I also agree with the BCE on the boundary for East Staffordshire, but I prefer the name East Staffordshire to the BCE suggestion of Burton, because I wish to match the constituency name with the local authority name for the wards it contains. This is consistent with the approach taken for other constituencies. My boundaries in the Northeast of the sub-region are therefore the same as the BCE proposals.

I agree with the BCE on the outer boundaries of:

• the 4 constituencies encompassing Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and areas to the South of these (which I will refer to as Sub-region Northwest),
• the 2 constituencies Lichfield and Tamworth (which I will refer to as Sub-region Southeast),
• the 2 constituencies Stafford and South Staffordshire (which I will refer to as Sub-region Southwest).

Sub-region Northwest:

The biggest difference between my proposals and the BCE ones turns out to be around my area of Trentham and Stoke-on-Trent. I live in the 2010 Trentham and Hanford ward in Stoke-on-Trent.

Stoke-on-Trent will not divide neatly into 2 or 3 constituencies. If combined with Newcastle-under-Lyme the total will not divide neatly into 3 or 4 constituencies, so the outcome for my area is destined to be a bit messy. This is compounded by the Stoke-on-Trent 2010 wards being large.

Stoke-on-Trent is historically a combination of 6 towns: Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, Longton, each of which still retain a strong identity. Areas such as Trentham where I live have a village history and still retain some geographical separation.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council contains 2.4 UK quota of electorate so good local ties could be well represented by locating the 6 towns in 2 core Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and allocating some peripheral areas outside these. This is the basis for my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, containing Tunstall and Burslem and my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, containing Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton. I prefer these to the BCE proposals which split Burslem at its centre and leave Burslem North and Tunstall outside the city constituencies. Stoke is also split. The BCE report states that it seeks to respect the Southern boundary of the city but I cannot see that this is more important than respecting the Northern boundary and the 6 towns.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council contains 1.3 UK quota of electorate so I have aimed to keep most of it in one constituency, joining 4 rural wards with neighbouring Stafford Borough wards and Southern peripheral wards of Stoke-on-Trent. I prefer this to the BCE proposals which split Newcastle-under-Lyme nearly equally in two and combine the wards around the town centre with Stone and Southern rural areas.

My proposal has 8 of the 2010 Stoke-on-Trent wards in each Stoke-on-Trent constituency leaving 4 more peripheral wards; Trentham and Hanford where I live, Blurton, Meir Park and Sandon and Weston and Meir North, to join with other villages such as Barlaston and the town of Stone, in Stafford Borough. Similarly my proposal has most Newcastle-under-Lyme wards in Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency leaving 4 rural wards; Audley and Bignall End, Halmerend, Madeley and Loggerheads and Whitmore, to join with the Stoke-on-Trent wards mentioned and Stafford Borough wards. This seems reasonable in terms of the geography and history of the areas involved. Trentham is currently split between local authorities with the smaller part in Stafford Borough. However my aim is not primarily to unite these, it is focused on the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent and central Newcastle-under-Lyme. The constituency I propose for my area includes wards from 3 different local authorities, but I think this is an acceptable compromise considering the character of the areas and the coherence of the proposals overall. In a purely self-centred sense I would not be unhappy, if the numbers were different, with remaining in a Stoke-on-Trent only constituency. But the UK quota laid down in law does not allow this for the whole city and I prefer a solution that relates well to local links throughout the wider area.

Sub-region Southeast:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southeast of the sub-region. There are two wards where there is a difference: Whittington and Hammerwich. Whittington is a rural ward and in character is better placed with the rural wards around Tamworth than with Lichfield, this placement also gives the Tamworth constituency a better geographical shape. Hammerwich ward encompasses part of Burntwood, so it makes sense for this ward to be in the same constituency as the other Burntwood wards. In addition the A461 provides a very clear geographical separation between Hammerwich and wards to the Southeast.

Sub-region Southwest:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southwest of the sub-region. There is only one ward where there is a difference: Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley. I would place this ward in the same constituency as most of the other South Staffordshire District Council wards, which makes better sense to me. Additionally, the Northern boundary of the ward is better defined geographically than the Southern boundary which cuts through Kiddemore Green. My proposals have the advantage of placing the whole of Kiddemore Green in the same constituency.

Names:

My approach to naming constituencies is to match the names with the local authority name for the bulk of the wards in the constituency. Most of the names I have chosen are therefore self-explanatory. This is the reason why I prefer the name East Staffordshire over the BCE suggestion of Burton. I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Burton but I think my suggestion is more logical.

There are two Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and I have chosen to call them Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South. I far prefer this to the BCE suggestion of Stoke-on-Trent Central and Stoke-on-Trent South, as this appears illogical and anyone not knowing the area would wonder why there is no Stoke-on-Trent North.

I propose the name West Staffordshire for the constituency comprised of parts of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough, Stafford Borough and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils. The three separate names have already been used for other constituencies and the name West Staffordshire pairs well with East Staffordshire. This West Staffordshire constituency has a fair amount in common with the previous Stone constituency. I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Stone but I think my suggestion is neater.

Conclusion

I present proposals which improve on the BCE initial proposals. I am sure there will be other proposals which disagree with mine, some of which may be better. Where I have made suggestions further from where I live, the views of those living in those areas must take priority. The important point is that the most local views should prevail but knock on effects must be considered and compromises arrived at. The key most important points for me, close to where I live, is that the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent should be neatly located within Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and the bulk of central Newcastle-under-Lyme should be located in one constituency. I also favour the Staffordshire Moorlands, Cannock Chase and East Staffordshire boundaries as suggested in the BCE initial proposals.

 

Nicky Davis

http://nickydavis.blogspot.com/

Twitter: Nicky_Davis_

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 8/12/11

I was unable to attend to observe the Stoke-on-Trent City Council meeting on 8th December 2011.  I arrived home from the dentist (ouch – not pain, cost!), hurriedly got some food ready for later then popped onto the live webcast and twitter just in time to catch the start of the motion against the name City Sentral for the planned Hanley shopping centre.  I watched, read and tweeted a little then dashed out to the excellent Christmas concert at Trentham High School.

I have now caught up, watched the webcast and comment on some of the public questions and the City Sentral debate.  (Webcast times are given in brackets.)

Public Questions

Adam Colclough had asked what steps the council would take to maximize electoral registration under the new individual registration system.  Council Leader Mohammed Pervez had said that the exact response would await legislation but the council had achieved over 96% in recent years.  Adam (0:18:28) asked if the council leader would engage constructively with community groups.  The response from Pervez (0:19:32) is silenced on the webcast.

John Taylor, on behalf of Friends of Bucknall Park City Farm had asked who took the decision to abandon the tender process for the farm site, when and what bidders were told. Cllr Janine Bridges, Cabinet Member for City Services, said this was decided by the Director of Business Services in consultation with Elected Members on the 27th January 2011 and a notice was published.  John (0:20:03) cited other councils that had retained their city farms and asked why our residents are not as worthy.  Janine Bridges (0:21:16) said problems with land ownership had been resolved and it was now possible to look at integrating the site into Bucknall Park.

John Taylor had also asked about the unfulfilled stated commitment of the council to finding a new operator for a similar city farm for the future.  Janine Bridges had said alternative uses for the land were being pursued because of lack of funding for a city farm.  John (0:22:12) warned residents not to believe the word ‘commitment’ next time they hear this from the council and asked how this word should be interpreted.  Janine Bridges (0:23:26) struggled to answer and talked about difficult decisions, then seemed to imply there was some hope for a city farm.  John pointed out the contradiction between this and the written answer.

Kieran Clarke had said many other councils were sharing services and had asked why  Stoke-on-Trent City Council was not doing this, as had been stated in the press.  Cllr Sarah Hill, Cabinet Member for Finance, had said they were actually sharing in some cases and were investigating further sharing.  Kieran (0:26:05) raised concerns that such ventures involved recruiting temporary workers when so many council workers were being made redundant.  Sarah Hill (0:27:07) talked about this being best value.

Mick Williams had asked why he had not got answers to his public questions at the last two full council meetings (he didn’t – see my previous blogs on this) and asked for the issues to be addressed or the meaningless charade of secrecy and obfuscation to be discontinued.  Pervez had replied that he believed the number of questions asked indicated success and asked Mick to email him the questions.  Mick (0:28:48) said he had tried to ask questions again because he hadn’t had them answered and suggested that success should be measured by satisfaction from the response to questions.  Pervez (0:30:10) seemed to think it was only necessary to give responses regardless of quality.

City Sentral Debate

Cllr Paul Breeze (0:57:26) proposed:

That, in view of the clearly overwhelming expression of public opposition to the name City Sentral for the proposed new Hanley shopping development, as a matter of significance to our city, as witnessed through many media outlets, including local radio, tv, newspaper articles, letters and a poll, in addition to an online petition and general word of mouth, this City Council:-

• rejects the name City Sentral for the proposed new shopping development

and,

• In partnership with Realis Estates, endeavours to put in place a more acceptable process to choose a more appropriate name.

He mentioned this is not a political issue and gave a great speech about having pride in our city, respecting people’s views and involving them in the choice of name.

Cllr Andy Platt (1:03:42) said he hadn’t had any letters or emails about this and mentioned other issues such as jobs and housing, although he didn’t say how many letters he had had about those.

Cllr Alan Dutton (1:05:15) congratulated Paul Breeze, saying he had done the most to promote Hanley city centre shopping centre.  Great!

Cllr Terry Crowe (1:07:20) said the debate is a waste of time because residents hadn’t told him they were concerned about the name.  Clearly he doesn’t read the local press.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (1:08:40) said the £350 million investment is important.  He said “who are we to complain about the name”?  Well Pervez, you are the elected members who are supposed to be representing the people’s views.  

Cllr Adrian Knapper (1:11:07) declared an interest because he has a business, Realis are his landlords.  He floundered over describing where his business is.

Cllr Martin Garner (1:11:48) said the council has no power and Realis can have what name they want.  Weak!

Cllr Paul Shotton (1:12:44) said we shouldn’t question the name.  Again, weak.

Cllr Randy Conteh (1:14:47) spoke in support of Paul Breeze’s motion.  He supports the development but not the name because the majority of residents associations’ attendees he had met were against the name and he is representing residents.  Well said Randy.

Cllr Mark Meredith (1:15:58) said investors saw no problem with the name.  Worryingly he said shopping centres elsewhere had failed.  Why I wonder, could it be anything to do with councillors and developers not engaging properly with reality?

Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:18:43) asked for the vote to be put.

Cllr Debra Gratton (1:18:58) said we shouldn’t be concerned about levels of education and she and her girlfriends are looking forward to the shopping centre.  Enough said.

Cllr Dave Conway (1:19:45) said we should not confuse primary children.  Agreed, what a weird world they have to grow up in.

Paul Breeze (1:22:43) angrily summed up that he was not surprised but deeply disturbed by levels of sarcasm, patronising and arrogance shown.  He said Mark Meredith had been to RAs where all residents didn’t like the name, so he was the biggest hypocrite.  Paul Breeze said he welcomes the investment but this is not about the money, it is about the soul of the city.

The motion was lost at the vote (1:26:07).

City Sentral History

Cllr Mark Meredith is fond of the name chosen by the developer Realis, for the new shopping centre in Hanley.  Clearly he is very pleased to go on jaunts to promote it in Manchester and Cannes and have breakfast in Keele Hall.

Cllr Paul Breeze on the other hand had written an open letter to Duncan Mathieson, managing director of Realis, pleading for it to be changed.  I don’t like his suggested alternative although he does say the people of the city should decide.
 
The debate regarding the name has been going on in the Sentinel since September.  David Elks on 15th September posed the question “Hanley's new £350million shopping centre is going to be called City Sentral. Do you think the brand identity is a good idea, or does it make the city look stupid?” which attracted 60 comments.

My alliterative letter was one of many letters written to the Sentinel by aghast residents. Hearing Mark Meredith try to justify the name on BBC Radio Stoke prompted my letter, in which I promised to buy him a dictionary if he corrected the spelling.

D Hewitt from Newcastle said outsiders would conclude Stoke-on-Trent residents are the least well educated in the country.   Richard Faulkner from Tunstall wrote a poem.  Ann Salih from Norton wanted the talented and proud people of the city to be asked for suggestions for a name. Mervyn Edwards from Wolstanton called the name a “crackpot proposal”. Peter Bennett from Meir Heath discussed illiteracy. Phil Glover from Milton referred to the dubious spelling.  Terry Buttery from Weston Coyney stated: “This can only further the misconception all Stoke-on-Trent people are dim and slow and deserve the bunch of idiots who run this city.”  J M Morrey from Stoke-on-Trent accused the council of being weak.  Lucy Hind from Trentham referred to our councillors’ “woeful academic standards”. Raymond Rhead from Meir Park queried why the council wouldn’t ask the people of the city what name they would like.  Sandra Johnson from Stoke-on-Trent described the proposed name as “absolutely nuts”.  Roy Hedges from Cheadle speculated that it could be a conspiracy to make fools of us.  G George from Talke suggested the name “UpAnley”.  Andy Morris wrote an excellent comment article describing the name as “crass stupidity".  Mrs Jane Moore from Cheswardine near Market Drayton suggested Jubilee as an alternative name.  Jeff Healey from Northwood questioned the logic of Realis approach.

More recently some letters approving of the name have appeared.  Bill Quelch from Tunstall said he likes it and thinks it good marketing.  Brian Walklet from Stafford reported being won over by the name because of the money.  Richard Talbot from Penkhull went even further, calling the name a “stroke of sheer genius”.

However, others have not succumbed.  Andrew Smith from Hanley takes the same view as I do, that the name should just be corrected to City Central.  Patricia Skinner from Etruria is convinced the misspelling sends the wrong message.  She has suggested  plenty of alternatives and has spoken to Duncan Mathieson (who apparently insisted that Stoke-on-Trent has 5 towns not 6).  It is clear these are not people who are inclined to listen to locals.  Dave Everall from Newcastle sums up the situation well, he says: “Of all the ridiculous, misplaced and inept ideas that this city has had to put up with over the years this surely has to go to the top of the list”.
 
Pam James set up a petition against the name attracting 237 signatures.  A Sentinel poll found 95.7% against the name.   


Nevertheless, the Labour council will plough ahead and ignore what people think.  Why do people persist in voting for them?

Boundary Review 2013 – 3rd blog

Boundary hearing – Stafford

I gave a presentation at the boundary hearing in Stafford on Monday 14^th November, of my ideas discussed in a previous blog.  This is an account of my experience of it.  I could only attend after work, so that limited me to only about an hour out of 2 days of presentations, so unfortunately I cannot give an account of other contributions, but the Boundary Commission will publish these.

Venue

The venue, the county building at Martin Street, Stafford, was not great because parking was difficult.  If I’d not been working and had plenty of time, I could easily have travelled by bus from Trentham.  However as I was dashing there from work I had to travel by car.  I got there by 6.30pm and was due to speak at 7pm.

Mediocre performance

I think I did ok but not brilliantly.  I had practiced my talk which took 10 minutes.  That was what I was allowed so I felt I shouldn’t dither too much.  I had prepared a few handouts of my spreadsheet but to avoid disruption only gave them to a few interested people afterwards.  I used a powerpoint presentation which essentially compared my proposals with the Boundary Commission initial proposals using maps instead of spreadsheets.  (I’m not publishing the maps here because I still worry about copyright but contributions will appear on the Boundary Commission web site in due course).

Technology

I struggled with the technology a bit.  The computer provided and microphones were in front of me while the screen was behind me.  I needed to point to the maps but failed to use the cursor/arrow because it was very sensitive, I know I have my own computers set less sensitively than average.  So I gave up on that and resorted to a laser pointer, which showed up well on the screen.  But the difficulty was I had to stand to do this so was too far from the microphones really.  I have no trouble making myself heard but for the transcription microphone it may not have worked out well.  I don’t know how well others coped as the other speakers there that evening did not use the computer.

Key points

Because of the trouble at the start I messed up the introduction a bit.  I said I was an ordinary member of the public but forgot to mention that I’m not a member of any political party.  I said I was focussing on community links but didn’t point out at the outset that my emphasis was on matching constituencies to local authority areas as far as possible and had to work this in later.

I made the following points:

1. I agree with the Boundary Commission on boundaries for

•    Staffordshire Moorlands.
•    East Staffordshire (BCE Burton).
•  Cannock Chase.
•  Outer boundary of the 4 constituencies encompassing SOT, NUL and areas to the South of these.
•  Outer boundary of the 2 constituencies Stafford and South Staffordshire.
•  Outer boundary of the 2 constituencies Lichfield and Tamworth.

2. SOT has 2.4 UK quota of electorate so have 2 SOT only constituencies keeping the 6 towns in them; Tunstall and Burslem in SOT North and Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton in SOT South.  Disadvantage of BCE proposal is Tunstall is outside SOT constituencies and Burslem and Stoke are cut though their centres.

3. NUL has 1.3 UK quota of electorate so keep most in 1 NUL only constituency.  Disadvantage of BCE proposal is NUL is cut in half. 

4. Have a largely rural constituency to the South of SOT and NUL to include some areas from these.

5. At Lichfield - Tamworth border have Hammerwich ward in Lichfield and Whittington ward in Tamworth; this unites rather than splits Burntwood and places Whittington with other rural wards around Tamworth.

6. At Stafford - South Staffordshire border have Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley ward in South Staffordshire constituency, consistent with LA.

7. I have named constituencies to match LA names as much as possible, which is why I have chosen the names East Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme.  For Stoke-on-Trent it seems sensible for 2 constituencies to call them North and South.  I have chosen the name West Staffordshire because the LA names have been used and it pairs well with East Staffordshire.

8. Local people should decide boundaries.

Questions

The questions I had from the Boundary Commission chair sought to establish the extent of the links between the 4 wards I had placed outside 2 Stoke-on-Trent constituencies; Trentham and Hanford, Blurton, Meir Park and Sandon, Weston and Meir North and the areas to the South of these.  These were fair questions and I discussed the geographical separation of Trentham and Hanford and its village history, giving it similarities to villages such as Barlaston to the South.  However I didn’t put any more emphasis than this on Trentham, where I live.  I could have mentioned it would be nice to unite the bulk of Trentham in Stoke-on-Trent to the part of Trentham in Stafford Borough, but didn’t because my key aim is much less about Trentham and primarily about finding a solution that neatly encompasses the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent in 2 constituencies and the vast majority of Newcastle-under-Lyme in 1 constituency.  I did reiterate that the numbers constraint just means some Stoke-on-Trent areas have to be placed in another constituency.

I had not expected the hearing to include questions from the audience but Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, asked good questions I was happy to answer.  He asked why I had included the Northern Newcastle-under-Lyme wards; Newchapel, Kidsgrove, Ravenscliffe, Talke and Butt Lane, in a Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency.  I explained I was matching the constituency with the LA and it fitted around the neighbouring constituencies.  I had not included the Southern wards Clayton and Seabridge, which Paul didn’t like especially as he is from Clayton.  I said living in Trentham I perceive links to Clayton but admitted again it has much to do with numbers constraints.

I can understand how the changes are disruptive to MPs if they think they are likely to be selected and elected again, but it was the MPs collectively who decided we should have this boundary review.  I don’t personally agree with the reduction in MPs but as we have to do it I think there is little point trying to retain existing constituencies as that is logically destined to fail.  So we might as well focus on local links and local authorities although the numbers tightly restrict this.  Also, from an ordinary person’s point of view, our existing MP may not decide to stand again in the area or may not be selected by their party, so there is no guarantee of continuity anyway.

Other speakers

As I couldn’t attend much of the hearing and didn’t take notes, I cannot give a reliable account of other contributions, but the Boundary Commission will publish these.

I recall one person who spoke in favour of the Boundary Commission’s proposals, especially for Staffordshire Moorlands, I agree for that constituency.  There was another argument made in favour of linking Stone with the split Newcastle, which I can’t agree with.  A point made was the link for students travelling in to Newcastle private school.  I think this is a weak argument as it is irrelevant to the vast majority of the population and those who attend private schools often travel a distance anyway.  A speaker from Audley opposed the Boundary Commission’s proposed Kidsgrove and Tunstall constituency and said there were no links with Audley and it seemed as if it were just for the left-overs.

Written submission

I shall back up my proposal with a written submission, as it was impossible to cover all points in the 10 minute hearing.  I may even look into whether I could submit more than one suggestion, but time is likely to rule that out as I have a very busy life.  It would be nice if the next 4 week consultation stage were during the Christmas holidays when I have more time, but I expect it is more likely to be January.  It will be good to see a full set of everyone’s ideas.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 20/10/11

I couldn't observe the meeting because I was attending a school governors meeting so I viewed the webcast later.  I refer to times in the webcast in my blog and pick out three items I find of particular interest.

Public Questions

There were no petitions but there were some public questions.  A few who had asked questions attended to ask supplementary questions.   

Sam Richardson had asked whether ward budget spends could be published and Council Leader Mohammed Pervez had said these would appear on the web site.  Sam asked (0:24:53) about the time scale for this and Mohammed Pervez was pleased to report they are online now.  I am certainly pleased by this welcome development by the council.  Ward budget spends can be found with the information on each individual councillor.

Kieran Clarke had asked two questions, the first was what the council would do to address concerns residents may have about contacting councillors on expensive mobile telephone numbers where no landline number is given.  Mohammed Pervez had said he thought mobile numbers give better access.  Kieran asked (0:25:30) whether councillors could give a landline number.  Mohammed Pervez said he cannot comment on individual councillors' arrangements but he prefers a mobile. 

Kieran Clarke had also pointed out problems with 'Our City' magazine, such as poor content, for example not informing the public of full council meetings changing to the evening and poor distribution and had asked what the net cost of publishing it is.  Mohammed Pervez had said the magazine referred to the web site for further details.  This to me is a poor answer because for people who access the web, the magazine is not needed.  He also had said distribution is good and it costs about £25,000 per issue.  Kieran asked (0:27:55) whether the 6 issues a year is justified but Mohammed Pervez said he believes it is the best way to communicate.  Personally I think with all the cuts being made, 'Our City' should be top of the list for the chop as it's just a big pile of spin.  If it really is needed for those who don't access the web, it could be reduced from 32 sides of A4 guff (issue 23) to one folded A3 sheet with councillor details on one side and key factual notices of meetings and telephone numbers on the other.  In Trentham I always get it delivered. 

Mick Williams had asked two questions, the first to Cllr Gwen Hassall referred to her wholly inadequate response to questions at the last full council meeting, which I mentioned in a previous blog and asked if this meant a reluctance for community engagement.  She had said they had a new team working on community engagement and were in ongoing discussions with resident associations.  Well I'm a committee member of a residents' association and such discussions have not reached me.  Mick asked (0:31:58) the same question he had asked at the last full council, where have the resources come from for the new team, especially in light of the fact that funding for the Community Empowerment Network had ceased?  Gwen Hassall yet again spectacularly failed to answer the question!

Mick Williams had also asked Mohammed Pervez if he felt portfolio holders demonstrated quality in their answers to public questions and how shortcomings are dealt with.  Mohammed Pervez had said he chooses cabinet and deals with performance as he sees fit.  Mick referred (0:35:10) to two emails where he had been mentioned by name and he felt he had been disrespected, he thought cabinet qualities ought to include respect and asked whether he should direct his complaint to the Standards Committee or the Labour party.  Paul Hackney, legal officer, said he could get a form from democratic services officer Angela Gardner to submit a complaint to the Standards Committee.  Mohammed Pervez said he can also be approached about any complaint involving a Labour councillor.  I hope Mick does both.

Parliamentary Boundaries

Cllr Martin Garner (0:56:15) proposed a motion (minutes pages 20-22), seconded by Cllr Gwen Hassall (0:58:00) opposing the BCE initial proposals; objecting to the reduction in local representation, the lack of time for public hearings and the Stoke-on-Trent boundaries, the division of Burslem in particular.  The motion called for council to authorise cabinet to submit a response and alternative to the BCE.

The debate was largely party political with no constructive suggestions, so I might as well get party political, not that I like any of the political parties.  Martin had a go at the Tory government and the BCE.  It's a bit rich him talking about reducing local representation when it was his Labour lot with support from the Tories and Libdems who reduced our democracy by scrapping our local votes 3 years out of 4 and allowing us only 1 year out of 4, contrary even to a legitimate council vote!  He wasn't a councillor then but it was his party.  I blame Labour for our lack of local democracy.  I blame local Labour for letting the governance commission in to dictate to our city. I blame the previous Labour government for dictating to us and imposing the governance commission then the transition board. I blame Labour's previous mayor and current Cllr Mark Meredith for having his strop and getting his Labour government to force whole council elections on us using that most dictatorial Local Government Act 2000.  I blame Labour for cutting short the 4 year mandate of 20 of our councillors, Labour and otherwise, denying those councillors and the public who elected them decent democratic rights.  Martin may moan about the reduction in MPs, I agree I don't want them reduced, but where is Labour's consistency?  They were instrumental in reducing our councillors from 60 to 44.  It was them who got the LGBCE review started that resulted in the haphazard mess of council wards we now have.  Then our Labour MPs wouldn't pray against the result in parliament.  I was one of the Democracy4Stoke contingent who went to see Rob Flello MP to ask him to do this, but he wouldn't, despite previously saying he thought Stoke-on-Trent needs 80 councillors.  So Labour don't like the Tory Act of Parliament and BCE initial proposals now and I agree I don't either, but the difference is they are hypocrites.  So, party political rant largely over and back to the council meeting and my views on it...

Cllr Abi Brown (0:58:17) opposed the motion but didn't seem to put forward any view of her own on the boundaries.  Cllr Jack Brereton (0:59:56) asked what the council really wants but did not say what he wanted.  He put forward a crazy view that a split Burslem is good because it would have two MPs.  If he had added fairness to that it would lead to every community being split, going against the local links that any boundary review ought to consider.  Cllr Randy Conteh (1:01:53) said he wasn't going to have spoken on this.  He might as well not have done as he just said he would abstain.  Cllr Joy Garner (1:02:17) presented a good argument for the need for a united Burslem not split by a constituency boundary.  Cllr Debra Gratton (1:03:46) told us she lives in Burslem (something she is unwilling to admit on her council web entry).  She moaned about the previous LGBCE boundary review and moaned that money is wasted on a boundary change nobody voted for, but the LGBCE review she complained about was triggered undemocratically by her Labour government who imposed a whole council election system which was not voted for and an unelected transition board, all on her watch!  Cllr Andy Platt (1:04:40) has not got a clue; he accused the BCE of political gerrymandering when it is not in their remit to consider party politics and blamed them for using the old ward boundaries which the act requires them to do, so he ought to blame parliament for letting that through.  Cllr Neil Day (1:07:16) said the government has ignored common sense but he doesn't spell out whether he will be asking his MP to vote against whatever the final BCE proposal is on principle.  Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:09:01) blamed the electoral commission for using the old ward boundaries, but again this is an issue with the act of parliament.  He also moaned about the reduction in MPs and the reduction in democracy.  Agreed, but this is what his own Labour lot did to our councillors, they wreaked absolute havoc with our local democracy, on his watch!  Cllr Ann James (1:11:01) unsurprisingly (to me anyway) spoke by far the most sense of all the councillors.  She said she was concerned about authorising cabinet to prepare a response from the council and thought individual responses would do more good.  She also mentioned the failed fight against the Labour government to try to stop the reduction in councillors.

The motion was carried:

For the motion:- Lord Mayor; Councillors Ali, Aumir, Banks, Bridges, Clarke, Crowe, Day,
Dutton, Fry, J. Garner, M. Garner, Gratton, Hamer, Hassall, Hill, Hussain, Kallar, Khan,
Knapper, Meredith, Pender, Pervez, Pitt, Platt, Reynolds, Shotton, Rosenau, Walker,
Wanger, Watson, Wazir, Wedgwood, Wheeldon and Wilcox.
Against the motion:- Councillors Brereton, Brown, Conway, Hayward, James and Ward.
Abstained:- Councillors Breeze and Conteh.

If I'd been a councillor I would have voted against the motion on the basis that any council response ought to be a full council response and not delegated to the cabinet and individual responses are preferable to trusting the cabinet with it.

The Dimensions Cover Up

Legal officer Paul Hackney (1:17:33) spoke at the start.  He said that because confidentiality (cover up) had been promised in the settlement between the council and Waterworld - Mo Chaudry, he advised the questions asked in the motion should not be answered (further cover up).  This of course denies us, the public, information on the way the council operates and deals proposed using our tax payers money.  What a disgrace!  A motion (minutes page 23)  was proposed by Cllr Lee Wanger (1:22:11) and seconded by Cllr Dave Conway (1:27:00) who wanted to know:

• Whether there was any agreement, in writing or verbally between the council and any
third party to supply facilities for Dimensions users if it were closed?
• Whether any offer of financial imbursement or enhancement, in writing or verbally
was offered to any third party to cover any loss to that amenity?

Where was Dave Conway when we needed him?  It would have been better for him to put the case.  The motion was defeated.  Typical Labour 'openness'.

Boundary Review 2013 – 2nd blog

Prior work

In my 1^st blog on the Boundary Review 2013 I reported on calculations I had done and possible constituencies I had arrived at for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region, prior to publication of the Boundary Commission for England initial proposals.

Maps and electorate figures

Since publication we have had access to the BCE maps, which are helpful in providing an overview of the whole sub-region as part of the West Midlands map.  Prior to that I only had election maps, which were and still are very useful but do not zoom out far enough for an overview.  I have to confess I just love maps!  As a result of looking at the maps I have made some changes to my proposals although these are fairly minor. 

I also added the 2011 electorate figures to my current spreadsheet.  The BCE is using 2011 figures, which makes better sense, but 2010 ward boundaries, which is a little inconsistent.  I had misunderstood that 2010 figures must be used by act of parliament but this is just for defining the UK quota; 76,641 and constituency minimum; 72,810 and maximum; 80,473, then the 2011 figures must be used.  My proposals work with both 2010 and 2011 figures anyway. 

I have coloured in a map for my proposals and compared with the BCE.  I do not publish my map here for fear of inadvertently breaching copyright but the BCE will be publishing contributions including mine.

Ethos and methodology

My approach has been to put the greatest emphasis on local communities, geography, current and historical links and a strong emphasis on trying to match constituencies with local authorities.  My reasoning is that I think this structure focuses on the issues that affect people’s lives locally and in an ideal world would feed ideas from the grass roots via the MPs to influence policy in parliament.  Of course we don’t live in an ideal world but we can strive to do the best we can in that direction.

I don't regard matching the new constituencies with existing ones as that important, the reduction in number means significant changes anyway and I put a higher priority on the opportunity to match constituencies with local authorities.

As a resident in the area I have the advantages of local knowledge and that I can focus on detailed links for this one small area.  In comparison the BCE has to consider the whole of England and did not consult to discover local views prior to publishing its initial proposals.  The consultation comes now, after publication.  So this is where interested local people such as myself can help the BCE arrive at more appropriate proposals based on local views.

Comparison of my proposals with the BCE initial proposals

There are substantial areas of agreement between my proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region and the BCE ones.  The area I selected to present proposals for exactly matches the sub-region chosen by the BCE.

Sub-region Northwest:

The biggest difference between my proposals and the BCE ones turns out to be around my area of Trentham and Stoke-on-Trent.  The city is historically a combination of 6 towns; Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, Longton, each of which still retain a strong identity.  Areas such as Trentham where I live have a village history and still retain some geographical separation. 

Stoke-on-Trent City Council contains 2.4 UK quota of electorate so good local ties could be well represented by locating the 6 towns in 2 core Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and allocating some peripheral areas outside these.  This is the basis for my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, containing Tunstall and Burslem and my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, containing Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton.  I prefer these to the BCE proposals which split Burslem at it’s centre and leave Burslem North and Tunstall outside the city constituencies.  The BCE report states that it seeks to respect the Southern boundary of the city but I cannot see that this is more important than respecting the Northern boundary and the 6 towns. 

My proposal has 8 of the old 2010 Stoke-on-Trent wards in each constituency leaving 4 more peripheral wards including Trentham and Hanford where I live to join with other villages such as Barlaston and the town of Stone.  This seems reasonable in terms of the geography and history of the areas involved.  It does mean that the constituency I propose for my area includes wards from 3 different local authorities, but I think this is an acceptable compromise considering the character of the areas and the coherence of the proposals overall.  In a purely self centred sense I would not be unhappy, if the numbers were different, with remaining in a Stoke-on-Trent only constituency.  But the UK quota laid down in law does not allow this for the whole city and I prefer a solution that relates well to local links throughout the wider area.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council contains 1.3 UK quota of electorate so I have aimed to keep most of it in one constituency, joining 4 Southern and rural wards with the Southern peripheral wards of Stoke-on-Trent.  I prefer this to the BCE proposals which split the Borough nearly equally in two and combine the wards around Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre with Stone and Southern rural areas.

Having considered the significant areas of difference between my proposals and the BCE proposals for these 4 constituencies, there is a major agreement; the outer boundary of this Northwest section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region is identical.

Sub-region Southwest:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southwest of the sub-region.  There is only one ward where there is a difference: Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley.  I would place this ward in the same constituency as most of the other South Staffordshire District Council wards, which makes better sense to me.  Additionally, the Northern boundary of the ward is better defined geographically than the Southern boundary which cuts through Kiddemore Green.  My proposals have the advantage of placing the whole of Kiddemore Green in the same constituency.

My proposal for Cannock Chase is identical to the BCE proposal and the outer boundary for the 3 constituencies of this Southwest section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region is also identical.

Sub-region Southeast:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southeast of the sub-region.  There are two wards where there is a difference: Whittington and Hammerwich.  Whittington is a rural ward and in character is better placed with the rural wards around Tamworth than with Lichfield, this placement also gives the Tamworth constituency a better geographical shape.  Hammerwich ward encompasses part of Burntwood, so it makes sense for this ward to be in the same constituency as the other Burntwood wards.  In addition the A461 provides a very clear geographical separation between Hammerwich and wards to the Southeast.

My proposals have an outer boundary for the 2 constituencies of this Southeast section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region identical to the BCE proposals.

Sub-region Northeast:

My proposals for the 2 constituencies of the Northeast section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region are in complete agreement with the BCE proposals, apart from names.

Names

My approach to naming constituencies is to match the names with the local authority name for the bulk of the wards in the constituency.  Most of the names I have chosen are therefore self-explanatory.  This is the reason why I prefer the name East Staffordshire over the BCE suggestion of Burton.  I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Burton but I think my suggestion is more logical. 

There are two Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and I have chosen to call them Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South.  I far prefer this to the BCE suggestion of Stoke-on-Trent Central and Stoke-on-Trent South, as this appears illogical and anyone not knowing the area would wonder why there is no Stoke-on-Trent North.

I propose the name West Staffordshire for the constituency comprised of parts of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough, Stafford Borough and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils.  The three separate names have already been used for other constituencies and the name West Staffordshire pairs well with East Staffordshire.  This West Staffordshire constituency has a fair amount in common with the previous Stone constituency.  I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Stone but I think my suggestion is neater. 

Politics

Party politics are to play no part in the boundary decisions but I will make brief comment on my area for the sake of the blog.  My proposals would put me in West Staffordshire which would be a safe Conservative seat whereas the BCE proposals would put me in Stoke-on-Trent South which would be a safe Labour seat.  My reasons for my proposals have nothing to do with party politics; I have never voted tory.  Future candidates imposed by the political parties may or may not be the current MPs.  An awful tory could be chosen but equally well an awful labourite could be chosen.  I am a complete cynic when it comes to party politics.  I'm not keen on any of the political parties and I’m not likely to vote for the MP I end up with unless there are no alternatives or the alternatives are even more dire.  I’d be inclined to vote for a decent independent, but if there were one they wouldn’t win anyway.  All I can do is hope the individual the party lands me with is willing to be a good representative and puts local people ahead of party loyalty when it really matters.

My reasons for my boundary proposals are based purely on local character, geography, current and historical links.  Having reviewed and modified my initial ideas a little and paused due to being busy then returned, I am now pretty happy with my proposals within the constraints specified by the law.

Proposals

My current proposals are:

Nicky's second spreadsheet

I am strongly of the view that the BCE should choose local proposals such as mine in preference to their initial proposals, because local people should define such issues, according to my grass roots philosophy anyway.  The BCE is useful for collating, publishing and facilitating compromise amongst local views and for making decisions in areas where there is little local interest.

I look forward to seeing other local views for the Staffordshire area when the BCE publish them.

Pacific Road Mast Application

A planning application for a Vodafone/O2 mobile 'phone mast on Pacific Road, Trentham met with significant opposition locally.  I, along with many others, submitted an objection.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council on this occasion supported community wishes by rejecting the planning application on the grounds that the design, height and location of the mast and associated equipment would result in a visually intrusive and incongruous structure in the streetscene, contrary to PPG8, CSS Policy CSP1 and Structure Plan Policy D2.

Mono consultants,on behalf of Vodafone, have now appealed.  In a nutshell they seem to be saying that they think the mast would look ok and they can't find anywhere else to put it.  But shouldn't local people be the ones to determine this?

The appeal will now be considered by the Planning Inspectorate. They are asking for, amongst other things, evidence of existing coverage gaps.  This is interesting because I did not feel convinced of the need for the mast from the evidence provided, though Vodafone must think there is a need, given their determination to pursue this.

I wonder who will win?  Big companies or little local people and their council?








.