Boundary Review 2018 - 4th blog

I was interested to read the debate on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 18/11/16. If successful this would increase the number of UK constituencies (MPs) from 600 to 650, increase the allowed variation of a constituency electorate from the ideal number from 5% to 10%, have a boundary review every 10 years rather than every 5 and use 2017 electorate figures rather than the December 2015 figures in use in the current review. Currently we have 650 MPs but after the current review will have 600 according to the legislation already in law, so in effect the amendment if passed would retain the current number of MPs. Using more up to date electorate figures would add over 2 million electorate into the constituency calculations.

Pat Glass MP moved the bill, she will not be standing in the next election but said "in order to have a democratic system that is suitable for the 21st century, we need to look at ways in which we can preserve the best of what we have while looking to improve engagement wherever we can".

A few points of interest I note from the debate include a very good point made by Mark Harper. "If we are not able to proceed with the boundary changes that the commissions are currently working on, we will fight the next election on seats that are drawn on electoral registers dating from 2000, so not only would we not be including the 2 million people who registered for the referendum and the 700,000 people who registered subsequently, but we would be missing the millions and millions of people who have registered to vote since 2000, and, by the way, we would be including all the people who were on the register in 2000 but who, sadly, are no longer with us."

Another excellent point made by Andrew Stephenson was "More than 40,000 representations were made by members of the public during the 2013 abandoned review. Surely, as Members of Parliament, we should be encouraging people to engage with the process, not trying to scrap or abort it, so that we have a general election based on electoral figures that are 20 years out of date." 

He also said "Rather than changing all the rules halfway through this process—or almost towards the end of it—and trying to get this done again from scratch, would not hon. Members be better off encouraging their constituents to engage with the process? In the time between the initial proposals in the 2013 review to the concluding proposals, 60% of all the recommendations were changed. It is therefore perfectly easy, within the parameters of the 2011 Act, to come up with constituencies that reflect local communities and demographics in every area across the UK."

Wendy Morton reinforced this. "This House should accept that a boundary review is under way and that the public are being consulted for the second time in five years. It would be wrong to ignore their views. To halt the process again would be unforgiveable."

Many of the MPs who contributed to the debate merely focused on whinging about the boundary commission's initial proposals for their own area. I don't think that was the point of the debate and they will be better off sending their comments and constructive alternatives to the boundary consultation which some MPs are certainly doing.

I have to say that the biggest flaw with this bill is it is much too late! The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 has been law for 5 years so any amendment should have been successfully implemented before this came into law or in the years since then. Whilst I certainly agree that using up to date electorate figures would be preferable to using the 2015 figures, with the current boundary review well underway it is not feasible to change the numbers it uses now and have the review completed by 2018. This aspect of the bill is completely unworkable. At least using 2015 electorate figures is preferable to using 2000 figures.

Apart from the unworkable timescale contained in the bill I would have been supportive of other aspects of it if it had been brought many years earlier. I don't agree with reducing the number of MPs to 600 whilst population and electorate numbers are increasing. I think constituencies are quite big enough as it is. However in my opinion this point is not as important as the fact that we are now into a second boundary review where members of the public are encouraged to get involved and they are indeed listened to! But the last review was scrapped by government so this one really should not be. Also I think the review is very important for fairness to make sure electorate numbers in the constituencies are equalised much more than they currently are. Regrettably I think that means I would rather see the results of the boundary review implemented and put up with having only 600 MPs. On whether the review should take place every 10 years or 5 years I am neutral. Every 5 years achieves better accuracy and fairness but frequent changes may be unwelcome. The best part of the bill which would I think be the one key point worth pursuing at this stage would be to relax the allowed difference in electorate to 10% of the ideal number in a constituency. This is still better than discrepancies we currently have and I think is good enough. Having looked at the numbers implications in the last abandoned review and this one it is clear the 5% restriction does constrain some of the boundaries rather too much for what would suit communities best. There will always still be issues but the 10% would solve many of them without being too unfair.

I always like to hear what my own MP Rob Flello has to say. "The Boundary Commission proposals for Stoke-on-Trent will have two effects, certainly as far as my constituency is concerned. First, a number of my constituents who live within the city of Stoke-on-Trent will find themselves represented in the county—in the rural area—which will break their existing link with the city. They will still live in the city and pay rates to city, but they will find themselves represented by an MP out of the city. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, my constituents and others who live in the city are represented by three MPs, who happen to be Labour but could be anyone in future. That will be downgraded to only two. What message does that send to the people of Stoke-on-Trent?" I cannot see that this is really the problem he seems to be implying that it is. In actual fact, in terms of local authority areas, one of the current constituencies with "Stoke-on-Trent" in the name already contains wards outside Stoke-on-Trent city council, albeit not rural wards, because Stoke-on-Trent does not have enough electorate by itself for 3 MPs. Every constituency will have even more electorate under the review so most or all will consequently cover a larger area, it is not just a Stoke-on-Trent issue. Rob speaks as if he will apply for selection as a candidate in the next election, which I imagine would be for the new Stoke-on-Trent South, even if this is modified in the final proposals, as it would have the most overlap with his current constituency. I would be one of his constituents he would lose (that will save him a bit of work!), living in Trentham it is entirely sensible that this area would be grouped with more rural areas, as some wards must. Rob is a decent MP, I am one of those constituents who does write to him fairly frequently about various issues and he does reply and let me know what he is doing to represent us. I am generally happy with him and if I am represented by a different MP I do not know whether they would be as helpful and attentive or not. But, we should have fairer constituencies with similar communities grouped together as much as possible and that is more important than who a specific MP might be.

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?

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.

Boundary Review 2013 - second consultation

The deadline for the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) consultation on representations received on the initial proposals was on 3rd April.  I did submit a response to this.  Time has not been on my side for blogging though, but now I reproduce my consultation response, followed by other miscellaneous comments just for the blog, below, specifying relevant Unique Reference Numbers (URNs).  This blog follows previous blogs;   1, 2, 3, 4.

BCE second consultation - response by Nicky Davis

I wish to make a broad ranging comment rather than comments attached to specific URNs, so I have just picked the Stafford transcript (URN 30029) as a convenient entry point, as I spoke there as well as making a written contribution (URN25156) and a subsequent comment (BCE/CR/000313).  I have submitted these 3 slightly different proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region, given in the spreadsheets:

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

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

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

The key points are not to split any of the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent and keep them all within two constituencies Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South, and keep most of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough within a constituency of the same name.  My own area of Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent, is amongst areas I place in a constituency I call West Staffordshire in order to facilitate this.  The only difference in the 3 spreadsheets above is in the choice of which Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough wards to place in West Staffordshire to make the numbers work.  I choose rural wards of Madeley and Loggerheads and Whitmore in all cases but in addition choose either Seabridge and Clayton or Halmerend and Audley and Bignall End or Seabridge and Keele.  All these work though I marginally prefer the last one because of strength of links between Keele and Madeley.

I am pleased that all comments are published by the BCE but I am disappointed with the way they are presented for the following reasons:

• The 3 main political party responses are highlighted, leaving me to wonder whether the responses from ordinary people are being taken seriously enough.
• The category of ‘ordinary’ responses is too coarse, even after the late publication of response URNs by current constituency.  A comprehensive viewing for a given area is too cumbersome.
• It would have been helpful if a report presenting the key points of respondents regarding particular geographical areas had been published.  Indeed if these responses are being seriously considered, such an analysis must be done and as no analysis is presented this adds to my doubts about ordinary people being taken seriously.  I would strongly recommend that in future reviews such an analysis is presented and that responses are tabulated by ward rather than just by constituency, to allow responses from particularly contentious areas to be easily located.

I generated a spreadsheet using the BCE one but providing URNs for the current Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region constituencies in separate sheets.  I also corrected a few mistakes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdDVJc2NlcncxT3VwMWRPNnZQQlVaZGc#gid=9

I have read the contributions listed for the 3 current Stoke-on-Trent constituencies. 

The response from Stoke-on-Trent South was very sparse, only two responses apart from my own.  Ron Elikowski from Blurton (URN 4194) agrees with the BCE but does not elaborate.  Eric Kelsall from Trentham (URN 6621) makes comments on Newcastle-under-Lyme rather than Stoke-on-Trent.

For Stoke-on-Trent Central there are some general disagreements with the review process and some respondents comment on Newcastle-under-Lyme rather than Stoke-on-Trent.  Nicola Bishop (URN 17354) and Tristram Hunt (URN 22467) wish for Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme to be separate.  My contribution does this to a larger extent than the BCE initial proposal does.  Mohammed Pervez for Stoke-on-Trent City Council (URN 22190) is one of several responses that object to the reduction in MPs.  I agree, but I find it odd and inconsistent of Mohammed Pervez to object to this, given that it was his Labour party former government that applied the same treatment when they imposed a reduction in the number of councillors on Stoke-on-Trent.  Mohammed Pervez objects to the splitting of Burslem in two.  I agree with him on this point and my contribution solves this.  Denise Johnson (URN 19842) makes an interesting point, agreeing that Bagnall should be in Staffordshire Moorlands, as proposed by the BCE.  She lives nearby in Light Oaks in Stoke-on-Trent and presents her scathing view of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, concluding that: “I am disgusted to say I live in Stoke-on-Trent and if Staffordshire Moorlands would have Light Oaks back again I would be pleased and please for everyone’s sake please keep Bagnall Parish in the Staffordshire Moorlands”!

There are more responses for Stoke-on-Trent North.  These clearly show objections to splitting Burslem in two and cite the current and historical importance of this ‘mother’ town of the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent.   Some responses regret loss of the constituency name of Stoke-on-Trent North.  I agree and keep North and South in my contribution, losing Central.  Many of the responses highlight a lack of commonality with areas such as Madeley, although links to Kidsgrove and some other Northern wards of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough seem more acceptable.  As I have not had time to look at the Newcastle-under-Lyme responses I cannot draw too many conclusions, although I have looked at the Stone responses and it is clear that residents in Madeley also think there is no commonality with Northern wards of Stoke-on-Trent.  There are comments for and against including Biddulph within Stoke-on-Trent North, more for, but I have not looked at what residents of Biddulph might think and personally I agree with the neat and appropriate BCE proposal for Staffordshire Moorlands.

In the absence of any analysis of responses by BCE and without time to read the Newcastle-under-Lyme responses, I am loath to make any further suggestions than those I have already made which address most of the key points made by other Stoke-on-Trent respondents and consider knock on effects and provide solutions which work for the whole Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region.  If I try to place Madeley within Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency for example, by knock on effect it adversely affects the arrangement of the Stoke-on-Trent constituencies.  The main reason for this difficulty is the large 2010 Stoke-on-Trent wards used as building blocks by the BCE under strong direction from the act of parliament and the requirement of that act to work within numerical constraints that are in my opinion too tight.  This problem will be reduced at the next review because the 2011 Stoke-on-Trent wards will be used, most of which are smaller.

Other comments

As explained above, it is difficult with the way responses were presented to get an overall picture of views.  I read the responses for all Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and Stone.  I didn’t read the Newcastle-under-Lyme ones, not because they aren’t important, just because there were so many, an indication that they are indeed important!  So my comments merely include selected ‘highlights’.

A huge number of the Stone responses did not want Newcastle-under-Lyme split.  There were however a few who argued in favour of the BCE proposal to link Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stone, but for rather odd reasons.  For example Evan Jones (URN 12509) from Barlaston cites the A34 link and the University Hospital of North Staffordshire (UHNS), where Neill Smith (URN 12946) from Stone says his son was born.  Jill Piggott (URN 13792), from Walton, Roger Barnard (URN 13834) from Fulford and Clive Barker (URN 17661) and Glennys Barker (URN 17666) from Blythe Bridge also mention the hospital, travel links and schools.  But the UHNS is in Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency and the A34 goes through Stoke-on-Trent South constituency before it gets to Newcastle-under-Lyme.  As for schools, I would have thought the majority of students go to schools more local to themselves.

There is a little Bill Cash MP fan club in Cresswell.  Lindon Horleston (URN 16939) would be sorry to lose Bill Cash and wants to keep the Stone constituency.  Jaqui Leach (URN 17340) wants Checkley, Tean and Alton to remain in Stone.  She says about Bill Cash; “I voted for him in the last election because of his hard work, good reputation and my trust in what he does”.  However B Woodward (URN 19895) from Cheadle refers to Bill Cash retiring at the next election.

A number of Stone respondents are less than complimentary about Stoke-on-Trent.  John Dale (URN 609) from Rough Close does not see the link between Stone and Newcastle-under-Lyme but would rather this than “the awful Stoke-on-Trent”.  Mr and Mrs Wilkes (URN 21279) from Madeley say “Stoke-on-Trent has made a mess of all they have been involved with in the recent past” and cite land sales, Ceramica and the cultural quarter.  Linda Washington (URN 16600) from Blythe Bridge would “strongly disagree with any proposal put forward by local councillors in the Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle area”!  B Woodward (URN 19895) presents a particularly scathing account that says: “No-one in the Staffordshire Moorlands with the remotest modicom of common sense would wish to be part of Stoke-on-Trent!  In my life-time of 72 years I have seen the City destroyed piece by piece without any intervention or support from members of parliament.  Mines were closed; the pottery industry decimated; and now the city is being laid derelict by so-called Housing Regeneration!!!”  It goes on and is well worth a read in its entirety.

I’m not a great fan of political parties but as contributions from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are highlighted by the BCE and I have read the Stafford transcripts (I could only attend at Stafford for a short time) that contain a lot from political party representatives, I make some comment.  The references I give are to the Stafford transcripts, not the party proposals and are in the form (N,M) where N is 1 or 2 corresponding to the day and M is the page number.

The Conservative approach seems to be to agree almost entirely with the BCE initial proposals.  Karen Bradeley, MP for Staffordshire Moorlands (1,32) talked positively about matching the constituency with the district council and the strong rural and industrial identity with the Moorlands that for example Biddulph, Werrington and Alton have.  She said including Cheadle in the constituency would be welcome.  She said the proposals for Newcastle-under-Lyme reduce the split between 4 constituencies to 2.  I can see her point on that but the problem is that the proposed split is too detrimental to community identity, which I think is more important.  Cllr Stephen Ellis for Cheadle West (2,89) supported the BCE proposals, saying the people of Cheadle want to return home as they are not part of Stone.  Cllr Ian Lawson for Biddulph North (2,59) explained that Biddulph has 10 strong residents’ associations and everybody seems happy with the BCE proposals.  He said people in Biddulph do not want to be “thrown in at the deep end with Stoke, of all places” “where over the years there’s been a reputation of Stoke ignoring the people, mainly by their elected representatives”.   Cllr Mark Holland for Westlands (2,4) supported the BCE initial proposals.  Ms Diana Reece (2,38), chair of Tamworth Conservative Association, welcomed Hammerwich ward to the constituency. Personally I think it would be better placed in Lichfield, but more important is what the people there think.  Mr Rob Hayward (2,25) from London, representing the Conservative party, talked about numbers of local authorities in a constituency and numbers of constituencies in a local authority.  He spoke in favour of the BCE initial proposals, especially for Staffordshire Moorlands.  He did however mention my representation!  He said “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.”  Well, I’ll take that as a compliment, I expect it’s the closest he could get to saying he liked my proposals, given that he needs to support the party line.

The Labour proposals include some important points that I agree with, such as keeping Burslem together and keeping much of Newcastle-under-Lyme together.  But where I disagree is that they worsen the boundaries further afield, especially by taking Biddulph and Werrington out of Staffordshire Moorlands.  I doubt that this would be popular in those areas.  Contributions were made by Joan Walley, MP for Stoke-on-Trent North (1,22) and Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme (2,39).  I talked briefly to Paul Farrelly about their proposals at Stafford.  Paul Farrelly mentioned in his talk the 3 dales project in Newcastle-under-Lyme; Apedale, Lymedale and Silverdale.  Having been to the new park being landscaped in Silverdale, I am impressed with it.  Many other Labour politicians also talked about their proposals. Stoke-on-Trent councillors who spoke particularly objected to the BCE splitting of Burslem.  Cllr Alan Dutton for Burslem Central (1,29) gave a slightly confusing presentation as he said Stoke-on-Trent North should not gain any Newcastle Borough wards then wanted to include Newchapel.  Cllr Mohammed Pervez for Moorcroft (1,66) caused even more confusion.  Even the assistant commissioner seemed to get exasperated, saying “But I wondered, do you know what the Labour party proposals are?”  Cllr Joy Garner for Burslem Park (2,16) however gave quite a good description of how people in Stoke-on-Trent, especially Burslem, feel about their community and history, admitting that people are parochial.  Cllr Paul Shotton for Fenton East (2,36) made some economic observations.  CllrTrevor Hambleton for Bradwell reported that on 19/10/11 Newcaste-under-Lyme Borough Council passed a motion to reject the BCE proposals because of the splitting of Newcastle-under-Lyme.  Mr Michael Brereton (2,68) provided community based arguments in support of the Labour proposal.  He mentioned a proposal in the early 1990’s to form a unitary authority of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent, to which there was much opposition.  He said “the population didn’t actually turn out in smocks with pitchforks, but they got very close to it”!  Cllr Gareth Snell for Knutton and Silverdale (2,8) presented some good arguments with respect to Newcastle-under-Lyme wards, but it is further afield where I see the problems with the Labour proposals occurring.  I find it interesting that people other than me, Gareth Snell included, look at wheelie bins when they are out and about, to observe which council area they are in!  Mr Taylor from Westlands, (1,54) for Western Seabridge and Clayton residents’ association, does not see any cohesion between Westlands, Clayton and Seabridge and Fulford, Swynnerton, Barlaston and Stone.  Of course he is commenting against the BCE initial proposals but this may mean he would not favour at least 2 out of my 3 suggestions.  Mr Webb (1,71) and Ms Jocelyn Morrison (2,82), from Werrington, spoke in favour of Werrington being included in a Stoke-on-Trent constituency, which I find rather surprising.

The Liberal Democrat proposals are fairly complicated and a bit messy, especially in that they do not preserve the Staffordshire county boundary.  Cllr Nigel Jones for Thistleberry (1,49) speaking for the local Liberal Democrats, disagreed with the regional Liberal Democrats and agreed with Labour. Cllr David Becket for Halmerend (2,13) reported residents being opposed to being in a constituency with Kidsgrove wards and Stoke-on-Trent North.  I wonder if my proposal that includes Halmerend in a ‘West Staffordshire’ constituency with some Stoke-on-Trent South wards would be more acceptable?  I have had some very interesting and productive discussions with Cllr David Murray for Albrighton and Shifnal especially about the contentious Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stone area.  The secondary consultation comments from the Liberal Democrats will be good to see in publication in due course.

Independent councillors also gave representations. Cllr Andrew Hart for Biddulph North (2,86) reported being very involved in residents’ associations, who support the BCE proposals and do not want to be part of Stoke-on-Trent.  Cllr Jim Davies for Biddulph North (2,87) agreed.  Cllr William Day for Caverswall (2,24) reported consulting widely with residents and supported the BCE proposal for Staffordshire Moorlands.  He said a previous proposal to take Werrington out had resulted in mass protest and people would fight tooth and nail against any such proposal.  He said “I don’t represent political parties, I represent people.”

The secondary consultation comments will be published by the BCE later in the year.