Prior work
In my 1st 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 I do not publish my map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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment