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
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:
It
is however the following link
(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:
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:
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.
