Boundary Review 2018 - 2nd blog

In my previous blog I had attempted my own boundary proposals for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent but was very pleased to find the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) initial proposals are better than mine.

I had missed a trick at the border of South Staffordshire and Stafford that enabled a better arrangement for the constituencies further North. Nevertheless I do think the constituencies of West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke-on-Trent North can be further improved.

I have submitted a detailed comment to the BCE consultation and a spreadsheet showing my recommended changes but I just reproduce the highlights here.

Movement of Abbey Hulton & Townsend ward from Stoke-on-Trent North to Stoke-on-Trent South:

I think this ward belongs in Stoke-on-Trent South because of community similiarities and geographical proximity to Eaton Park and Bentilee & Ubberley wards. Before the most recent local government review of Stoke-on-Trent wards Townsend and Bentilee were in the same ward. Abbey Hulton & Townsend is also separated from neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent North wards by the river Trent, the A5009 and Carmountside cemetery.

Movement of Dresden & Florence ward from West Staffordshire to Stoke-on-Trent South:

I think this ward belongs in Stoke-on-Trent South because of close association, especially historically, with the town of Longton. Although the A50 separates it now, it is an urban area more in keeping with a Stoke-on-Trent ward than a West Staffordshire one. Quite significantly 5 of the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent each have a park which has been there for many years. Longton's park is Queen's Park, despite this being in Dresden and a little distant from the centre of Longton. So it is desireable that this ward be grouped with Broadway & Longton East ward containing the centre of Longton.   

Movement of Hanley Park & Shelton ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to Stoke-on-Trent North:

I think this ward belongs in Stoke-on-Trent North because Hanley Park in the ward belongs with Hanley.

Movement of Joiner's Square ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to Stoke-on-Trent North:

I think this ward belongs in Stoke-on-Trent North because of its geographical proximity to the centre of Hanley and especially as a combined movement with Hanley Park & Shelton ward. The river Trent separates this ward from neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent South wards.

Movement of Springfields & Trent Vale ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to West Staffordshire:

This ward can I think reasonably be in either constituency and I admit the main reason to move it is to make the electorate numbers work given that the other three suggested ward movements have strong recommendations. Springfields & Trent Vale ward is far enough from the centre of Stoke to not have to be included in Stoke. It also links well with Hanford & Trentham via the A34 corridor.

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 - 1st blog

Following a parliamentary decision, the number of MPs in the UK has to be reduced from  650  to 600, giving an average UK electoral quota of 76,641.  The act of parliament defines some criteria that the new constituencies must fulfil.  Electorate figures and local government boundaries applicable at the 2010 election must be used and the electorate in a constituency must not be more than 5% different from the UK quota.  Each constituency must therefore have an electorate between 72,810 and 80,473.

Notwithstanding that as a grass roots democrat I disagree with the reduction in MPs; I think democracy is better served by maximising involvement and devolution, given that the reduction is happening I am interested in considering how it is done.  I live in Trentham, in the 2010 Trentham and Hanford ward in Stoke-on-Trent, so I focus my discussion on my area. 

In England a reduction from 533 to 502 constituencies is required, of which 2 must be for the Isle of Wight.  The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) reviews the English Wards and publishes a guide for this.  Following this the BCE allocate 54 constituencies across the West Midlands region as used for the European elections; 4,092,811 electorate and need compelling reasons not to use that boundary. In Stoke-on-Trent our wards were redefined for the 2011 election but the act is based on the 2010 wards which the BCE will not divide.

Prior to publication of the BCE initial proposals, following their guidance and referring to the BCE data, I performed calculations for the Staffordshire area only, including Stoke-on-Trent.  The total electorate for this area is 838,212.  Dividing by the UK quota or regional quota gives 11 constituencies for the area and an area quota of 76,201.  Where my approach differs a little from the BCE approach, is that I prioritise use of local authority boundaries over existing constituency boundaries, whereas the BCE prioritises these the other way around.  My reason for this is primarily that I think local authorities have more affect on people’s lives and there is an advantage of an MP having to deal with constituents from as few local authority areas as possible. 

Of the 9 local authorities in the Staffordshire area, 3, Cannock Chase, Lichfield and Staffordshire Moorlands, have electorate in the correct range to neatly become constituencies, so I did this for 2, although geography made this impossible for Lichfield.  Stoke-on-Trent will not divide neatly into 2 or 3 constituencies, if combined with Newcastle-under-Lyme the total will not divide neatly into 3 or 4 constituencies, so the outcome for my area is destined to be a bit messy.  This is compounded by the Stoke-on-Trent old wards being large.  Using my knowledge of the localities as best I can I arrived at the following result:

Nicky's first spreadsheet

This is not based on my own preferences for Trentham, it is just a result I get that works within the rules.  Communities may be taken into account in defining constituencies but party politics cannot be considered.  My spreadsheet results would move me from a safe Labour seat to a safe Conservative seat.  I have never voted Conservative, although I have stopped voting Labour as well.

I'm not convinced my result is that great but at first glance I prefer it to the initial BCE proposal.  I will digest that better when I find more time to do so.  It will also be most interesting to find out the views of others.