Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 20/12/12

I will refer to times on the webcast of this council meeting. There were only two petitions and no speakers present and I found myself to be the only public questioner who turned up. So I will concentrate this blog on my public questions, focusing more on one of them.

But first a few snippets from the rest of the meeting, of which much was routine:

• The council (0:17:34) (Claire Gumbly) received Certificate of Commitment to Disaster Resilience from the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Campaign. I don't pretend to know much specifically about this but I mention it because I think planning for disasters and emergencies is a very important issue. Cllr Paul Shotton (0:18:29) said he thought Stoke-on-Trent was the first city in the UK to have committed to being a resilient city.

• Cllr Joy Garner was appointed to the Fire Authority in place of Cllr Matthew Fry while Cllr Janine Bridges was appointed to the Police and Crime Panel (0:23:29). This was a surprise because Joy Garner had been allocated to the Staffordshire Police and Crime Panel after losing the election to Matthew Ellis for the role of Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

• The council agreed to an interest free loan, described by Cllr Paul Shotton (0:49:08), to the United Kingdom Historic Building Preservation Trust (UKHPBT) to repair and regenerate the Middleport pottery site. Following a request for clarification by Cllr Ann James (0:53:25), Council Leader Mohammed Pervez (0:53:59) admitted this was an unsecured loan. As far as I can see this will result in actual expenditure by the council, because even provided the loan is repaid, the council loses the interest on the money by providing it interest free. Whilst this regeneration is a good idea, the interest free loan seems to be overly generous in a climate of sparse resource. Still, council members were unanimously convinced (1:00:27).

First question on pupil number projections

Now to my public questions (questions 3 & 4), addressed to the cabinet member for education Cllr Alan Dutton. As well as my keen interest in education, the background to my first question arose from my incredulity dating back to Building Schools for the Future (BSF) on discovering the council were calculating there would be 14,642 high school pupils in the city by the year 2020 but were only planning to provide 13,500 places! I have failed ever since to understand their rationale (or would that be irrationale) for this and I have written blogs on this before. Furthermore following a FOI request I unearthed more recent projections which seem to be calculated quite differently and arrive at 14,112 pupils by 2020. Leaving aside the bizarre policy of providing insufficient school places, I wondered about the cause of the difference in the projections and whilst I might not get to the bottom of how the BSF projections were done, I would like to understand the current projections.

An analysis of the actual pupil numbers available shows an average loss of about 9% between annual births in the city and entry to reception class in city primary schools, but with considerable variation, including the largest loss, 16%, for the largest number of births and the smallest loss, 5%, for the smallest number of births. For the more recent years, for which births are higher than ever and predictions are difficult, the council projections assume a 10.4% loss, which is probably a good enough guess.

Analysis of actual pupil number changes shows a loss from reception to year 6 of about 5%, with the largest annual loss of about 2% between years 2 and 3. The loss between years 6 and 7 varies between about 4% and about 7%. From year 7 to year 11 there is a smaller loss, about 2%.

Looking at the council projected pupil numbers, in most cases it is assumed there is no change between reception and year 2, between year 3 and year 6 and between year 7 and year 11, but this is not always the case. The projections for years 1 and 2 for academic year 2013-14 and years 10 and 11 for academic year 2012-13 are anomalous in this respect and I had asked about this in my first public question. Losses are incorporated into the projections between years 2 and 3 and between years 6 and 7, but these are not a fixed percentage and I wondered how they were calculated, so I asked about the algorithms used, also in my first public question.

I was disappointed that my first question had not been answered at all properly so my supplementary question (0:40:08) was: “This response is nothing more than vague waffle that doesn't answer the question. What are the actual mathematical formulae used for changes between years 2 and 3 and between years 6 and 7? Also, the specific cases I listed are clearly anomalous and I want to know why.”

Alan Dutton (0:40:41) admitted he couldn't even say the word algorithm and offered a meeting between me, himself and the relevant officer to address my questions. I was happy with that outcome and the meeting is currently in the process of being arranged for the new year.

The issue of BSF has taken an interesting turn more recently. BSF largely failed to take public views into account and has resulted in poor planned high school provision with insufficient future places particularly in the Bucknall / Abbey Hulton and Longton areas. This has resulted in the community schools action group campaigning for a free school at Mitchell and more recently a campaign for muslim faith free school at Edensor, following the BSF plan to close these two schools. Whilst I was opposed to the imposition of academies under BSF, am not keen on the free school concept either and have never liked schools being run on faith lines, I do appreciate the persistence of parents in trying hard to get what they want for their children and particularly schools where they want them, in spite of the system and using what they can of the system to that end. If such additional schools go ahead they will help with the shortfall the council has left in pupil place provision over the longer term.

Second question on post-16 education and training

The reason I asked my second question about the variety and numbers of places available in post-16 education and training is because the current academic year is significant. It is the first year that students cannot just leave school after year 11 and sign onto benefits or, I had thought, get a job without associated training. Although the answer indicated that the government has delayed the training requirement for students moving into employment – interesting! I had just been curious about the impact of this change and how it is being dealt with.

My supplementary question (0:41:14) was “This response is more encouraging in that it does list a wide range of post-16 education and training available. But it is severely lacking in actual numbers! I'm asking how many places of each type of training are available and I would like numerical answers.”

Alan Dutton (0:41:37) indicated that this could also be answered in the meeting. I welcome the chance to meet with Alan Dutton and relevant officer(s) to discuss both the questions and get into the details of the actual numbers.

Does Stoke-on-Trent City Council have any idea what it's doing?

Unfortunately I could not attend to observe the Stoke-on-Trent City Council meeting on 6/12/12, so I watched the webcast afterwards.  From what Lord Mayor Terry Crowe said, there seemed to be 3 members of the public observing the meeting.

At time 0:14:48 Cllr Olwen Hamer proposed a motion that the council authorises the Leader and Cabinet to prepare and submit a response to the revised recommendations by the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) and for a report on this action to be submitted to the full council.  Cllr Ruth Rosenau seconded this.

I have already submitted my response. 

There were only two speakers on the issue.  Olwen Hamer liked the fact that the revised proposals no longer split Burslem but she did not like the West Staffordshire constituency and its wide spread over 3 local authority areas.  She also wanted the existing ward boundaries to be used in constituency construction.  However the BCE is required by legislation to have regard to the old 2010 wards.  I can not find any submission by Olwen Hamer to the BCE consultation and do not get the impression she is properly engaged with the issues. 

Cllr Martin Garner, at time 0:16:42, echoed Olwen Hamer's comments.  He acknowledged that Stoke-on-Trent does not have enough electorate for 3 constituencies but wanted Stoke-on-Trent North to stay as it is currently except for the addition of Newchapel ward.  He did not make any suggestions for the other Stoke-on-Trent constituencies, merely complained about West Staffordshire.  This is not very constructive and he cannot expect the BCE to do much about this if he is not willing to suggest to them what he wants.  He quotes Rob Hayward speaking for the conservatives as wishing for constituencies to contain ideally only one or two local authority areas.  This is a fair point except  for all constituencies to fit together this will for some not be possible.  In fact, Rob Hayward said about my talk at the Stafford hearing “I think she gave some interesting thoughts.  I would not say whether I commend them or not but I thought they were interesting thoughts, particularly in terms of trying to link the historic towns of Stoke-on-Trent, as I understand them, while taking the part of Stoke-on-Trent that she saw as the more recent element out into a Stone constituency.”   The BCE revised recommendation for Stoke-on-Trent North is ideal in that it contains only one local authority, whereas Martin Garner's suggestion has two, three in his alternative numbering system where he counts Staffordshire County Council also.  In his submission to the BCE he even seemed happy to add another local authority by including parts of Biddulph.  It is also worth noting that he was happy to refer to old wards in that submission and made no complaint about not using the current wards.  His arguments do not consistently stack up.  Martin Garner then said the main reason for the review is to make it easier for the conservatives to win the next election.  But party politics have not been a criterion in the BCE proposals.

It will be interesting to see if Council Leader Mohammed Pervez and his cabinet do come up with a realistic alternative set of proposals, but I won't hold my breath!

At time 0:20:24 Olwen Hamer's proposal was put to the vote and Terry Crowe pronounced that the motion was LOST!  

This is a little surprising; it was a Labour motion, contributors spoke in favour of the motion, Labour have a majority of councillors and there was a Labour majority at the meeting.  It wasn't a named vote and the show of hands is not visible on the webcast, so at first I could only conclude that a significant number of Labour councillors voted against the Labour motion.  Terry Crowe appeared somewhat surprised himself, "you know where your friends are" he said.

Further confusion occurs on viewing the draft minutes which state that the resolution was made, in contradiction to the vote seen on the webcast.  I have since heard that the version in the minutes is the correct one, but if so why did Terry Crowe say what he did?

Does Stoke-on-Trent City Council have any idea what it's doing?

The Year The Town Hall Shrank

The recent BBC4 documentary series this month on Stoke-on-Trent CityCouncil was filmed over a considerable period in 2010-11 by Blast! Films and clearly the local nature of this deserves comment from local bloggers such as myself.

To put my comments in context I will state where I am politically, which is political but not party political. Referring to parties of relevance to Stoke-on-Trent and this documentary, I have never voted for the Conservatives or British National Party. I have in the past, to my shame perhaps, voted Labour and Liberal Democrat. I currently have a preference for independents (although clearly will not like all of them or agree with everything they do) and voted for the Hanford and Trentham independent councillors in the 2011 local election.

I have to say I was a little surprised about the focus of the documentary, mainly on the cuts and on specific cuts. Clearly they will have filmed many hours of footage and had to select from that quite severely to fit it into a 3 hour mini-series. But I suppose I expected a rather wider coverage and certainly more depth than appeared.

I did get the impression that some of the worst aspects of our city and our councillors, of all parties including Labour and the BNP and even independent councillors, were shown.

The 'democratic' process

There was a lot that the documentary didn't say. I have mentioned some of these things in a previous blog relating to the relationship between local and central government. A key issue here has been the use (and abuse in my opinion), by Labour, of the Local Government Act 2000  which was used to impose an unelected board to interfere in our city, take away our system of election by thirds contrary even to a local council vote and inflict ward boundary changes on us. So now we can only hold our councillors to account once every 4 years instead of annually 3 years out of 4. The documentary focused on the 2011 local council election but didn't put it in this context very well. Furthermore it did not mention the outrageous curtailing of the terms of 20 of our councillors, who were elected for 4 years which was then cut down to 3. This is unfair and undemocratic both to the elected councillors concerned who had been lied to about the time they would serve and to the electorate who voted for them to give them a 4 year mandate.  I know there were people interviewed who would have talked sensibly about these deeper issues of democracy, but their interviews were not included.

The documentary included the time just prior to the 2011 election when we had 60 councillors in 3 member wards and a very politically mixed cabinet including members from the 3 largest parties/groupings; Labour, City Independents, Conservative and Independent Alliance, but notably also a Liberal Democrat but not members of the larger British National Party and Community Voice groups. (It is worth pointing out that independent councillors often form groups for pragmatic reasons because the council is structured that way but are not whipped in the same way as political parties.) The cabinet was led by Mohammed Pervez from the largest group, Labour, who remains the leader of the current 44 member council, 33 of whom are Labour.

The filming showed some of the worst antics of the councillors, such as Debra Gratton looking really out of her depth and just saying how difficult things were and Mohammed Pervez being advised by media man Dan Barton (who has since left the council) along with other council officers, but with his blank look, appearing as if it was all washing over him. He used that phrase “we are where we are” which I hate and which is overused by some councillors to try to 'justify' any further stupid decisions they want to make. The documentary stated that Pervez is paid £44,000 per year for his council role and that he also has a full time job as a research scientist, so I would imagine there is little time to get to grips with council matters. Peter Kent-Baguley and Brian Ward were seen in heated argument and Terry Follows was seen being vocally rather aggressive towards Barbara Beeston. Mike Coleman made an inadvisable comment about muslims and what they wear that I had better not repeat (in the 'retweeting' debate this doesn't have to mean agreement in my view, just that you want to alert others to what someone else has said). Terry Follows and Denver Tolley were both shown using the scare tactic that if they don't do what 'government' wants they will come in and take over. But in Denver's case, as Labour, they actually brought the government in when it suited them. Besides, there is a lot the council does that isn't driven by government, the deeply unpopular move of the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley, squandering our money and plunging us into further debt whilst cutting valued services, being just one example.

In terms of the election itself the documentary reports Labour and anti-fascist groups “campaigning together”. Now I understand that there are very strict rules regarding election campaigns and campaign expenses and who is officially supporting whom and who is campaigning independently of whom, which clearly need to be adhered to!

I was astounded recently when it was reported in the local press that the council are squandering yet more of our money on spin! The article states that “Mohammed Pervez told The Sentinel he would review the authority's 'communication strategy' after seeing his party lose the Springfields and Trent Vale by-election to the City Independents in July”. The way that reads rather implies that our council tax payers money is being used to boost the image of “his party” - Labour. That cannot be right. I recommend reading the remarks made by former councillor John Davis (no relation) in this article, I have to say I totally agree with him on this.

BNP candidate Mickey White was interviewed, he wanted a future for his daughter and was frustrated at being unemployed with foreign migrants getting work. His concern for a good future for his child is one most of us parents share and his frustrations have some justification. Pervez has even stated at council that a rise in the city's population is due to EU migrants as well as birth rate.

Mike Coleman was interviewed talking about a well motivated, very organised body of people. The filming here left this a little ambiguous though I speculate that he may have been referring to a community of Asian origin, but I wonder if he was also on some level wishing his own political party could be that well organised. The worst aspect of the protesters outside the civic centre on election night was also shown when Mike Coleman was spat on. Protest by all means but that sort of assault is unacceptable. Mike lost the plot when he lost the election and went on to be convicted of racially-aggravated harassment.  Resorting to law breaking is not the answer either. I believe the BNP are now finished in Stoke-on-Trent and maybe even further afield.

A most pertinent comment was made by a local voter, Dave, who said he votes differently in local elections than he does in general elections. Now that is something I would like to see more of, firstly someone who is willing to consider the issues and actually go out and vote and secondly someone who is willing to consider voting differently in different elections, depending on the issues involved. How he votes is obviously his choice but it would be good to see more people making considered decisions rather than blindly following a party by tradition or not even bothering to vote.

Cuts

Right at the start of this documentary series it is stated, correctly, that central government Conservative cuts are responsible for reducing local government funding, for 2011-12 this was an 8.09% cut for Stoke-on-Trent, amounting to £21.6million. (Of course Labour have openly stated that they would be cutting if they were in government as well, just not so fast.) But the documentary immediately goes on to say that the Labour led council is therefore going to 'save' £36million. So it's not all down to central government, much is down to local council poor choices and as independent councillor Dave Conway states, “bad management”. This is a council which pays its chief executive silly money and even then he needs an assistant also on silly money.

Amongst the cuts the documentary focuses on is the cut to children's centres and the successful battle led by Melissa Beydilli to keep these open, followed of course by cuts to the services offered at these centres. It was interesting that Mohammed Pervez telephoned Melissa to ask to 'help her' with her talk when she presented her >5000 signature petition against the closures to full council. Melissa spoke well about the importance of early provision for children, but the filming also revealed a worse side. She was dropped off at the civic centre in a car which parked on a double yellow line! After the children's centres were 'saved' and of course after Labour had won so many council seats in the 2011 election and introduced a Labour only cabinet, they proposed a 30% cut to the children's centres budget. This is when Melissa realised what they were really like - “conniving” and said the campaign had been “used and abused”. In the end the cut was negotiated down to 20%.

Various other areas cut were also mentioned including Shelton and Tunstall swimming pools. The shenanigans that go on with swimming pools in the city are incredible. I'm not even going to dare to go there in this blog.

Another strong focus of the documentary was the closure of council care homes, Eardley and in particular Heathside House. The residents seemed happy there and the carers did really seem to care. It was interesting listening to some of the residents. I had to chuckle during a quiz when icebergs came up, a resident said it was a lettuce. Alice was a very jovial character and fantasized amusingly about a luxury holiday. Mabel didn't hold back in having her say and reported that they weren't asked about whether they wanted the care home closed, they were just told. Pervez described the care homes as “poor quality”, which annoyed Gaynor, the manager of Heathside House. A resident's relative in a meeting with Pervez said it was “baloney” for him to talk about short term rehabilitation when people have dementia, complained of “no proper consultation” and accused the council of failure. It slipped out during the documentary that the strategic decision to close the care homes had been made a couple of years previously, not attributable to the Conservative government then. It was quite heart wrenching seeing the old folk moved out of Heathside House. Gaynor took redundancy. I wonder how the residents and former staff are doing now.

What infuriated me the most about the care home issue was Pervez talking about “choice” for elderly people. They had no choice! 'Choice' seems to be a term used by Labour when they are doing exactly the opposite and dictatorially imposing things on people. Shame on them!

Further comments on the cuts are given in a good letter toThe Sentinel by Alan Lear, which I have commented on.

And the result of the 24/2/11 budget and cuts:

For:- Lord Mayor Tolley, councillors Al-Khatib, Barber, B. Ali, Z. Ali, Bell, Bowers,

Brian, Bridges, Brown, Clarke, Daniels, J. Davis, M. Davis, Dillon, Follows, Fradley, Garner, Gratton, Hamer, Hassell, Irving, Iqbal, Khan, Knapper, Lyth, Matloob, Najmi, Pervez, Powell-Beckett, Reynolds, Rosenau, Ryan, Shotton, Smith, D. Walker, Ward, Wazir, Wilcox and Wright. (These are Labour, Conservative and Independent Alliance, City Independent, Liberal Democrat and Non-aligned councillors.)

Against:- Councillors Barnes, Baddeley, Batkin, Coleman, Conway, Burgess, Marfleet, E. Walker, Joynson, Kent-Baguley, Rigby, Salih and Sutton. (These are City Independent, British National Party, Community Voice, Liberal Democrat and Non-aligned Christian Independent councillors.)

Pervez talked about approving this “budget of £36million” and then needing to take out a further £28million. Note that he is not talking about a budget as I would know it, a plan for spend, he is focusing just on cuts. The 2011 local election followed this budget. It was pointed out in the documentary that this election provided in part for a judgement on the cuts so far and the cuts to come. It is noticeable that the electorate largely voted for parties and people inflicting the cuts and less so for those opposing the cuts. So in some sense the people of the city are getting what they collectively asked for.

Council tax

The documentary series highlighted the council's appalling record on collection of council tax, exposed by Dave Conway at a full council meeting. There were millions of pounds of council tax debts dating back to 1993! One council worker said people were given repeated chances despite having excuses like forgetting (for 10 years in one case), spending all their money on holiday and not treating paying the debt as a priority. Pathetic!  Some had been given repeated court summonses which they had ignored. One had £6,000 of debt just written off. People were shown with nice cars and large televisions but still not paying their council tax. The bailiff shown struggled to get anywhere as she could only seize possessions with the council's permission which they wouldn't give. There were just no proper repercussions if people didn't pay. The chief executive John van de Laarschot interviewed on this passed the buck to elected members, indicating that they need to decide policy on this.

Some of us, including myself, always pay our council tax and pay it on time. I don't have a problem with the concept of taxation and social responsibility and wish that others who can't be bothered to pay weren't so selfish. Many people on low incomes and benefits get much or all of their council tax paid for them. If this isn't sufficient then they should appeal to the council to do something about it, not just ignore it. I don't think council tax is a great tax, I would prefer a local income tax, but as I'm in a minority on this I have to put up and pay up. I hate the way this council squanders my money but given that others in the city have put this council into power I have to live with it. But I am outraged that this council lets irresponsible residents off, they really do need to be more hard line on this. They should clamp down promptly to stop people building up large debts which become more difficult to pay back and to deter people from trying to get away without paying.

Summary

I found Mohammed Pervez's smiles whilst inflicting the cuts disturbing, he said he had driven the whole budget process himself and even said he enjoyed it! He enthused about his political ambitions. He talked about applying Labour values, but if this is what today's Labour values are then I want none of it. This is the man the electorate of Moorcroft choose to keep in power and has so much power given to him by Labour voting electorate in other wards bolstering the number of Labour whipped councillors. Under our poor approximation to democracy we look destined to suffer under a Labour council until at least 2019. The 2015 general election will bring out extra Labour voters who will put their crosses in the local Labour boxes too. Until we get more electorate willing to turn out and vote on local issues and for sensible alternative candidates, we are stuck with a Labour council.

Meanwhile I continue to be an independent voter when I get the chance and possibly even an independent candidate at the next local election.

Boundary Review 2013 - Revised Proposals - Final Consultation

The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) following a consultation on their initial proposals and a second consultation on representations received on these, has now produced a set of revised proposals. The final consultation on these is now taking place, for a deadline of 10th December 2012. I would encourage people to contribute, whether in favour of the proposals or against. My submission, endorsing the revised proposals for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, is given at the foot of this blog.

This blog follows previous blogs on the Boundary Review 2013; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

It is widely thought that the outcome of the boundary review will be thrown out by parliament irrespective of what it contains, due to bickering between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the coalition. So what's the point of engaging with the review any further? Well, there are actually a number of reasons:

• This is the first of a rolling series of boundary reviews initiated by the 
  Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011
  It must by law continue in the absence of any further legislation to stop it, so we might as well try to make the best of it. Taking part in the process allows better experience to be gained, both by those conducting the review and members of the public participating, so this can be used to inform actions to be taken in future reviews, regardless of whether the current outcome sinks or swims in parliament.
  
  
• Specifically, it would seem sensible to embrace the body of local knowledge and opinion that has informed the revised proposals. It would also seem sensible that the final proposals arrived at in this review form a starting point for considerations to be made in the next review, regardless of whether these proposals make it through parliament or not. So completing this review thoroughly provides the best basis for the next one.
  
  
• It looks like most MPs are not destined to treat the content of the final proposals seriously and have largely decided what way to vote according to their party political games, without sight of the final proposals. Why should we as local people let such actions stop us making our contributions? No, I think it's better that we carry on and at least have our input on record.
  
  
• Perhaps the proposals will actually be passed by parliament. I know that's not expected to happen but party politically the divide putting Labour and Liberal Democrats on one side and Conservatives on the other is quite finely balanced. I expect there is a likelihood that more of the 'others' will oppose the proposals and more rebels within the 'main parties' would oppose rather than endorse the proposals, but there will also be some who abstain or absent themselves. Also, who knows what further political games may play out between now and the vote. If the proposals were by surprise to be passed by parliament, it would be better to have contributed completely.
  
  

Despite reservations I have about the Act of parliament itself, expressed in previous blogs, I have found the consultation process a largely positive one. It was not so good that the initial proposals were produced without local input, however since that point the consultation has been largely well conducted, despite scope for improvement which I address in my submission. I was actually very cynical about individuals such as myself, not being a member of any political party, being taken seriously. Part of my cynicism comes from experiences with Stoke-on-Trent City Council so-called 'consultations'. In the case of the boundary review however, the points made, evidence raised and alternatives presented by everyone were considered and used as a basis for real changes in order for the revised proposals to better match the wishes of the majority within the constraints of the legislation. 

Of course I do feel particularly positive because the review, see West Midlands Revised Proposals Report, has incorporated (page 39) almost all aspects of my alternative proposals (pages 31-33).  I congratulate the Assistant Commissioners for the West Midlands region for the care taken in consideration of all the representations. The revised proposals for the West Midlands region can be found as a large map and as constituency and ward lists by viewing the West Midlands revised proposals annex.  Maps are available for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent   individual constituencies with further details in the WM R STAFFORDSHIRE sheet of West Midlands revised proposals by sub region.

Response to Boundary Commission for England Revised Proposals

Nicky Davis

Introduction

I would like to commend the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) and in particular the Assistant Commissioners for the West Midlands region for running a thorough, inclusive and well reasoned consultation. I fully endorse the revised proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region.

I am very pleased that the alternative proposals submitted by individuals, including myself, as well as political parties, were considered. The assistant commissioners adopted a sensible approach, noting the concerns of all residents, even those not submitting alternatives or providing limited alternatives and identifying the key issues which their initial proposals did not satisfy. Then all alternative proposals were examined to investigate the extent to which these could address the issues to satisfy the concerns of the bulk of residents in a way which worked within the rules for the entire sub-region. Importantly, the proposals were significantly revised in light of the alternatives presented and the concerns of local communities. I admit I had been cynical about the possibility of actually being properly listened to, but that is probably due to experience of Stoke-on-Trent City Council 'consultations'. In this case however the BCE did run a genuine consultation although they were naturally constrained by legislation. I am particularly pleased that the revised proposals have incorporated almost all of the suggestions I made in my alternative proposals.

Key issues

The key issues raised by a large number of residents were that they did not wish to see splits in communities with historical and current relevance such as the core urban area of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent, particularly Burslem, which were present in the BCE's initial proposals. There was also a widely held desire amongst Staffordshire Moorlands residents for the constituency to match the local authority area, in agreement with the BCE's initial proposals and strong views from areas such as Biddulph and Werrington to remain in Staffordshire Moorlands in preference to combining with parts of Stoke-on-Trent constituencies. There was also a desire to keep Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme electorally separate. As a resident of Trentham in Stoke-on-Trent I personally agree with all of these sentiments.

I had submitted three slightly different alternative proposals in the second consultation on the initial proposals, of which two are given at the links:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdExRU1o0TjRpNGFOSVhWYmRxclY5X2c#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdHlTR0FXTEw2eGNYVm1EZTR3cFlPUEE#gid=0

It is however the following link

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

(also attached as a file “BoundaryReview2013NickyDavis3” in xlsx, ods and pdf formats) which was the one which has been for the most part adopted in the revised proposals, so this is the one to which I shall refer in my comments now.

Endorsement of revised proposals for 'South Staffordshire'

The ‘South Staffordshire’ area (the area covered by the initially proposed constituencies of Burton, Cannock Chase, Lichfield, South Staffordshire, Stafford and Tamworth) presented fewer highly contentious issues.

I had suggested it would be sensible to place the Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley ward in the South Staffordshire Constituency and this would avoid splitting Kiddemore Green and I am happy to see this in the revised proposals. I had also suggested placing Whittington ward in the Tamworth constituency and Hammerwich ward in the Lichfield constituency to unite Burntwood and make use of the A461 geographical separation. This suggestion has not been adopted and these wards have been maintained the other way around in the revised proposals. I had also suggested changing the name of the Burton constituency to East Staffordshire to match the local authority name but this has not found favour. I am nevertheless content with these aspects of the revised proposals as I don't live very locally to these areas and have not read all the representations relating to them. I trust the Assistant Commissioners to have done this, taken proper account of local views, which is what matters most and not found cause in those views to make the changes I suggested.

Endorsement of revised proposals for 'North Staffordshire'

There were far greater difficulties with the 'North Staffordshire' area (the area covered by the initially proposed constituencies of Kidsgrove and Tunstall, Newcastle under Lyme and Stone, Staffordshire Moorlands, Stoke on Trent Central and Stoke on Trent South). There were several alternatives presented in addition to my own (IP/025156 and CR/003080), which are all discussed in the West Midlands revised proposals:

http://assets.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2900322_WestMidlands_ACCESSIBLE-2.pdf

pages 25-34, including my own alternatives, pages 31-33. It can be noted that for some reason my attachment has disappeared from CR/003080 but the submission made can be found within my blog at:

http://nickydavis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/boundary-review-2013-second.html

and I am attaching it again now (pdf file ”NickyDavisCR003080”).

The Labour party proposals (IP/025315 and CR/005106), had the advantage of rectifying the splits in Burslem and Newcastle-under-Lyme but brought the Biddulph area into Stoke-on-Trent North and the Werrington area into Stoke-on-Trent Central, which would be deeply unpopular and adversely impact Staffordshire Moorlands as a whole.

Henry Parocki, a resident of Wolverhampton, put forward similar but slightly different proposals (IP/019672 and IP/008834) to Labour, with the same advantage and drawbacks.

Adrian Bailey (IP30026) put forward proposals with a great deal of merit, in that they united Staffordshire Moorlands and avoided splits in Burslem and Newcastle-under-Lyme and brought the village of Madeley into Newcastle-under-Lyme which would please residents there. Under his proposals I would live in his Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone constituency and would personally be satisfied with that. However his proposals mean spreading the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent between 3 constituencies in a 2-3-1 split and leaving the town of Stoke isolated in one of them. I think my proposals for a 2 constituency 2-4 split are preferable. Currently in Stoke-on-Trent the council is planning to squander millions of pounds of our taxes moving the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley, whilst cutting and closing numerous public services and facilities. This is deeply unpopular and part of the concern amongst ordinary folk is the detrimental future for Stoke. To apparently isolate Stoke further may not prove desirable. Also Adrian's inclusion of more Stoke-on-Trent wards than I do with other wards to the South may make the proposals less palatable to those outside the city. So I think the revised proposals adopting my suggestions are marginally better.

Stephen Whittaker, a non-party political resident of Urmston, Manchester, put forward proposals (IP/025396 and CR/003585) the same as mine apart from the names of Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South being Stoke-on-Trent Burslem and Stoke-on-Trent Hanley respectively. It gave me a good deal of pleasure to read especially his second consultation submission, as I agree with so much of it and see many of my own views, attitudes and personality reflected there, even though I do not know him. I found reading his views on political parties very refreshing. I share Stephen's concern about the prominence given to political party representations but am glad that the Assistant Commissioners did in fact treat submissions from individuals seriously. I think Stephen's alternative names make sense in terms of Burslem and Hanley being major towns in the city and each nearest within their constituency to the boundary between the two proposed constituencies of the city. I would be equally happy with these names as I would with the use of North and South, the only drawback being possible dissatisfaction from residents of the other historic 4 towns. I am very happy that the revised proposals have at least selected North and South over North and Central as the latter aren't a very logical pair. I am also pleased that the revised proposals include the West Staffordshire named constituency which Stephen and myself proposed. The West Staffordshire constituency is not a particularly simple arrangement but within the bigger picture is the best practical option. It is of some regret that Madeley residents are not brought into Newcastle-under-Lyme, but many of their objections to the initial proposals were a lack of affinity with the North of Stoke-on-Trent. In the revised proposals this link is dissolved and being part of a wider constituency including just a few wards from the South of Stoke-on-Trent may be rather more acceptable to Madeley?

In conclusion I am very pleased that the revised proposals have adopted the revised constituencies proposed by myself and Stephen Whittaker for the 'North Staffordshire' area. They address the key issues, to unite every one of the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent in two constituencies, unite the urban core of Newcastle-under-Lyme, unite Staffordshire Moorlands and produce an acceptably workable arrangement named the West Staffordshire constituency.

Comments on the review and consultation process

There are positive aspects of the process as well as scope for improvement. I hope the BCE can consider the following comments in shaping future reviews.

Provision of the review guidance, spreadsheets of numerical data and maps on the website was very good, with the exception that perhaps more maps covering smaller areas could have been made available to contributors on which to draw our suggested boundaries.

The review process started with initial proposals from the BCE without prior consultation. It would be better if we could be invited for our initial suggestions.

I liked the opportunity to contribute at a public meeting where questions could be asked of me interactively to aid the Assistant Commissioners' understanding, as well as being able to provide a written submission. But improvements could be made for the public presentations, especially bearing in mind that boundaries depend on maps as well as numbers and are therefore very visual. So contributors could perhaps be forewarned that a verbal description to accompany diagrams would help the transcript and perhaps diagrams and maps provided by contributors could be incorporated into the body of the transcript. I found making my presentation at Stafford a little tricky because of having to speak into a microphone in front of me whilst pointing to my powerpoint presentation on the screen behind me, the screen position needs to be set up in the forward direction. Venues could be considered which are well set up for presentations and have ample and preferably free parking close by.

Whilst I approve of the publication of all submissions I think there is more that could be done to aid viewing of these. The constituency grouping of responses was brought in to help viewing of responses from certain areas but I think this is still too coarse and would be better subdivided into wards. A more sophisticated search facility would be helpful. It would also be useful to have submissions categorised into firstly comments and secondly alternative proposals that meet the required criteria, with the alternative proposals categorised into those for single constituencies and those for larger regions. It was not particularly easy for those of us providing alternative proposals to connect with others doing this, so this process could be aided by grouping submissions appropriately. I'm personally not party political but do understand that political parties will produce proposals and it is good to be able to see the views of our elected representatives. However I don't think the party submissions should be given a priority place on the website and would like independent proposals to be given equitable prominence.

It could be useful for the BCE to provide a summary of responses received, highlighting key issues, at the same time as publishing the comments. There are advantages and disadvantages in that. The advantage, particularly under the conditions of the current review, would be the ease of us discovering the concerns of others for those of us who as individuals can not find or read all the relevant comments. If there are improvements made to the presentation of comments as described above, this would be less necessary. The disadvantage would be that it could be seen as the BCE either deliberately or inadvertently trying to bias further input. Some balance would need to be struck.

The next review

At present it seems that the BCE proposals when laid before parliament look likely to be rejected, but we cannot be completely certain of that.

Whether they are rejected or accepted, it would seem sensible for the current review conclusions to be used as a starting consideration for the 2018 review. As well as changes in electorate numbers caused by population changes and movements, that the reviews are set to address, there is the change in legislation on voter registration that may produce further variations in electorate numbers regardless of population. So the current review results may possibly turn out to be markedly different from what is required at the next review. The requirement for constituencies to be within 5% of the electoral quota is a little tight, but is in the legislation so we are stuck with it. For the next review however, there will be a little more flexibility in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, because instead of using local government boundaries as they existed on 6 May 2010, the current ward boundaries will be used and most wards are smaller than they were.

I await with interest the final proposals, in the hope that no further changes are required in the 'North Staffordshire' area at least.

Relationship between Central and Local Government

I have sent in a response to the Commons Select Committee on

"Prospects for codifying the relationship between central and local government"

so I thought I would share this:

I just wanted to make a few comments in response to your 'consultation'.

I live in Stoke-on-Trent and have seen huge interference in local government amounting to party political manipulation, particularly by the Labour party, but the system is open to all parties to abuse.  I will come on to that.  

But first to the idea of having a code.  The principle of a code is in itself a good idea if the country were fair, but it's not.  For that reason I am not going to get bogged down in commenting on details of the code, as these things are too often empty words to look good and can so easily be over-ridden if the powers that be decide to anyway.

I do wonder why this code is being considered at a time when governance is becoming more and more centralised, especially financially, with less and less resource given to local government to provide services and the paring down of local government towards statutory obligations only.  This is accompanied by restrictions on local tax raising powers.  The appalling undemocratic academy system of schools, foisted on us by first Labour and now Conservative governments is a move to central control and local education authorities are on the way out.

Personally I'm in favour of well resourced local government, providing for empowerment of properly local people (not parachutists, paper candidates or political party ladder climbers)  to run their local areas for the benefit of residents, free from party political and central interference, but that just isn't the road we are on.  So I can't really see the point of a code for a relationship between central government and a local government which is being driven out of existence.

A much more useful idea would be to repeal the Local Government Act 2000 which is an undemocratic act open to party political abuse as it does not require any sensible justification for central government to move in and manipulate local councils.  

A governance commission was sent in to Stoke-on-Trent, it seems to me simply because the Labour party felt too many independent and BNP councillors were starting to be elected.  Now I'm no great fan of the BNP (they don't need intervention as they are proven quite capable of instigating their own demise), but I do confess to being an independent voter, depending on the independent, some are very good proper community representatives, others are despicable.  But the key point is whomever the electorate choose, be it BNP, independent or monster raving loony, it's their choice and the way to counter it is in a fair campaign, not by sending in the heavy mob.  The governance commission asked the council to look at the possibility of whole council elections, the council agreed to consider this but  this was later twisted into they had agreed to do it.  The results of a public consultation indicated a fairly even split between retaining thirds and moving to whole council elections.  Under the Local Government Act 2007, which is a much more reasonable way of doing things, the council then had a vote and reflected well the views of the public with an even split.  But it takes a 2/3 majority to decide on such a major change so the motion to move to whole council elections was defeated.  Whilst I favoured thirds, I would have thought it perfectly reasonable if the consultation had indicated a strong public opinion for whole council elections and the council had reflected this by >2/3 vote, to move to whole council elections.  I'm a democrat.  But the council vote was to retain thirds.  That is when the biggest outrageous event happened, central government moved in and forced whole council elections on the city, against local people and against local governance and imposed an interim board on us.  The then Labour government used the Local Government Act 2000 to do this, as no good reason is required.  This was done by a Labour government to assist Labour dominance in local government.  This had the further effect of undermining local opinion by foisting ward boundary changes on us.  The LGBCE produced a right mess of mostly 1 but also 2 and 3 member wards, contrary to public opinion.  Public opinion was somewhat more strongly in favour of 2 or 3 member wards than single member wards but overwhelmingly of the opinion that we didn't want a mixture, all wards should have the same number of councillors.  So we were ignored on that.  Furthermore we were told the council could have asked for single member wards only, which they didn't, but would not have been allowed to ask for two member wards only.  Where's the sense in that?  The new undemocratic system favours Labour dominance because it is easier for large parties to find candidates in whole elections and boundary changes are detrimental to independents with more of a personal relationship with the electorate in an area.  It also favours Labour dominance by alignment of local and general elections in 2015.

Above are the facts of undemocratic government interference in Stoke-on-Trent.  On top of that there are rumours I have heard, plus I was present at the local election count in 2011 though rules do not permit me discussing what I saw there.  There is talk of irregularities with the postal votes, to favour Labour.  I have also heard of usual polling stations especially in non-Labour voting areas being closed to the confusion of some of the electorate and forcing them to travel to other polling stations further away.  There were address confusions where some electorate did not vote in the ballot that actually applied to the ward they lived in.  There was lack of clarity and much speculation over whether at least one Labour candidate and likely others were actually eligible to stand for election.  I have no proof of these so make no allegations, none of the rumours may be true, but I have seen no investigations and it just doesn't inspire confidence when such rumours abound, especially when they sit on top of factual central government interference.

So, if you are going to codify the relationship between central and local government, don't just go through the motions or do it for spin purposes, actually mean it!

Some other points to make which may be further off topic, but I'll have my say anyway.  I think we should do away with cabinet systems in local government in favour of committee systems where all councillors have equitable roles and equal financial reward.  This helps to avoid their votes being 'bought' and is more democratic so every ordinary person's elected councillor gets a say in the decisions of council.  I also think we should have STV at local council elections.  This would encourage any number of local representatives to stand for election and be in with a proper chance and would also achieve election of the 'best fit' candidate to the local views.  But then I'm simply a believer in proper representative democracy rather than party politics.

Please include my contribution in your consultation process.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 18/10/12

The public gallery was full for this council meeting with people angry at the closure of community halls. Watch the meeting on the webcast.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (0:14:18) began with an announcement of more cuts to come, another £50 million over 2 years, no surprise there then. He only spoke out about the speed of the cuts though, typical Labour.  

City Independent Cllr Dave Conway (0:25:49) pointed out that the Labour council leaders can't blame government for borrowing £40 million to pay £50 million back in the wasteful move of the civic centre to Hanley and also that the Labour council leaders only kept children's centres to avoid the government claw back and would have closed them otherwise.  Cllr Conway said he expected to see their spin in 'Our City' magazine, he accused them of mismanagement and asked them to resign.  

Conservative Cllr Abi Brown (0:30:15) accused Labour of preventing regeneration in the Potteries Shopping Centre and having empty buildings not for sale whilst selling buildings people want to keep.

Lord Mayor Terry Crowe (0:31:00) announced that the next meeting has been moved from 6^th to 20^th December. I wonder what they are trying play down by having a meeting when many people are distracted by arrangements for Christmas with their families? Or am I being too suspicious?

Petition

There was just one petition, Neil Hawkins asked the council to revisit their plans for community hall closures and accused the council of being negligent. I mentioned in my blog on the 5/7/12 council meeting that Cllr Ruth Rosenau had indicated most or all would likely be closed soon.

The 'usual' procedure followed; City Independent Cllr Randy Conteh (0:38:49) moved a motion to refer the issue to the City Renewal Overview and Scrutiny Committee (the point of this is it would allow the lead petitioner and councillors to discuss things in detail). Conservative Cllr Jack Brereton (0:40:06) seconded it. Then the councillors had a go at each other and inevitably the Labour majority voted the motion down.

Public Questions

There were 7 public questions including one from Angela Maxfield on criteria for schools admission, which is a particular interest of mine. There were 3 supplementary questions.

Mike Barnes, question 3, had asked about information passed to councillors following a report finding the council "failing in its statutory duty to ensure an appropriate level of preparedness" in the case of an emergency such as rioting. Cllr Olwen Hamer had detailed which committees and councillors this had gone to including the cabinet member for transformation. Mike (1:26:49) asked, given that the report stated "the City Council is no longer prepared to be able to continue to deliver all of its critical services in the event of an incident", but Cllr Paul Shotton had dismissed disclosure of the report as administrative, who is misleading the public?  Cllr Hamer (1:27:57) responded that nobody was, improvements have been made and Mike has been sent the report.

Gabrielle Hoban, question 6, had asked what the point is of asking supplementary questions in public when responses are not made in public. Cllr Mohammed Pervez had said if a detailed response is required a written response after the meeting may be better. Gabrielle (1:29:34) asked why she is still waiting for responses to two questions raised in 2011! Good question. I'm no fan of our council leader but his response was correct this time; Cllr Pervez (1:30:11) apologised and said if the questions are forwarded to him he will provide answers. I hope, despite past performance not boding well, that Gabrielle does indeed receive her answers.

Mike Barnes, question 7, had followed up an announcement of £500,000 of tax payer's money to improve swimming facilities at Dimensions, by asking about progress. The answer from Cllr Mark Meredith had been rather noncommital and said whilst a new 25m pool at Dimensions is desirable, available funding is not enough. So, another example of highly spun council announcements with little substance then. Mike (1:30:34) said some buildings had been redacted on a list of buildings to be sold to help fund the transfer of the civic centre to Hanley and asked if Dimensions was one of them. I could see the answer coming; Cllr Meredith (1:31:34) said that as information was redacted he can't answer the question. So much for an open and transparent council then.