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.