In my previous blogs on the Boundary Review 2018 I presented my initial ideas [1], a revised proposal [2], my experience of attending one day of the hearings at Stafford [3], some thoughts on a parliamentary debate [4] and my contribution to the secondary consultation [5].
I have today submitted comments on the revised proposals, following previous comments submitted [6], [7] and [8]
The revised proposals for constituencies Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove and Newcastle-under-Lyme are markedly different from the initial proposals for constituencies West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme.
In my opinion these are worse than the initial proposals. I still prefer my slightly modified version [6] of the initial proposals where I agreed with the initial proposal for Newcastle-under-Lyme and moved just 5 wards between the other 3 constituencies.
I think the revised proposals are worse because by solving a boundary issue dividing communities in the Normacot and Florence areas another is introduced across Meir Hay, Longton town centre is in a different constituency from its railway station and there is a worse community and urban / rural mix in Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone and Newcastle-under-Lyme.
It does not appear, to me anyway, that there has been sufficient weighting of views submitted towards support for the initial proposals, particularly in respect of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Very worrying is that there is a glaring error in the summary of the report on page 4 where it is stated that “We have also proposed one constituency that contains part of Staffordshire and part of Stoke-on-Trent.” This is not correct! The Revised Proposals include two, not one, such constituencies: Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone and Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove.
With the mistake in place it appears that the revision for the four constituencies Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove and Newcastle-under-Lyme results in three each containing wards from only 1 local authority area and one containing wards from 2 local authority areas. But in fact these four constituencies include only two each containing wards from 1 local authority area and two each containing wards from 2 local authority areas. I would argue that this true situation isn’t any better than the Initial Proposals for West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme. Three of these each contain wards from only 1 local authority area and one contains wards from 3 local authority areas.
I am afraid to say that this error in such a prominent place in the report does reduce my confidence in how thorough the assessment and consideration of the consultation responses to the initial proposals has been.
