Boundary Review Current Status May 2020

I have been thinking about the boundary review for parliamentary constituencies, again. The latest from the government

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-03-24/HCWS183/

seems to be that they are going to throw out the results of the review, for a second time!

This is bad in various ways. So much time and money has been wasted on these reviews! There really ought to be better forward planning, don't waste all this, if you didn't want to do it you should not have started it. It also undermines the concept of public consultation. The public have been consulted, twice, and those of us interested have spent the time to think about it and input our views. For these to be ignored is just rude. It also undermines confidence in the government and does not encourage the public to participate in the future when they think they will just be ignored, again!

On the detailed points:

Need for equal and updated boundaries - this is important, constituencies should have very similar numbers of electorate for democratic fairness. the last review (in England) that was implemented used data from the year 2000. So a review is really needed now.

Maintaining 650 seats - I agree with this. The previous reviews that have not been implemented reduced the number of MPs to 600. With increased population it makes no sense to me to reduce the number of MPs. If anything they should be increased but I am happy if they stay the same. Also to try to mix reducing the number of MPs with equalising electorate numbers complicates the reasoning on the new boundaries. To stick with the same number of constituencies means the focus can be on minimising boundary changes but making them where necessary to equalise numbers and account sensibly for houses which have been built or demolished.

Electoral quota tolerance - I disagree with the proposed +-5% from average allowed variation in electorate numbers between constituencies. This was used in the two boundary reviews that were not implemented. It resulted in a few cases of strange boundaries that cut certain parts of communities off from the main area they associated themselves with. I would prefer a more nuanced approach, for example, require this +-5% limitation at the first round of consultation, but give the boundary commission the leeway to extend this maybe as far as +-8%, or 10% perhaps, if there is overwhelming community desire or concern about a particular boundary. This will only be needed in a few cases and sacrifices a little electoral equality but for the benefit or retaining a better community identity.

Boundary review cycle - I agree with the proposed 8 years as 5 years is a bit too frequent, but think that once it is reviewed it should be implemented!

Implementing the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions - I agree with the proposal to implement the results by order of council. I would normally want more parliamentary scrutiny but experience so far shows that political shenanigans just prohibits implementing what the public have had the chance to contribute to.

Boundary Review 2018 - 6th blog

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.

Boundary Review 2018 - 5th blog

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] and some thoughts on a parliamentary debate [4]. Of these the most relevant to my current comments is the second one, my revised proposal.

Yesterday I submitted my comments to the current phase of the consultation which ends on March 27th. This phase allows us to view and respond to comments made by other people on the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals. I highlight just some of the points I made here.

I read the comments filtered by current constituency, for Stone, Stoke-on-Trent South, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme only.

There were two key themes. Firstly there is very considerable support for the Boundary Review Initial Proposals, particularly for placing Kidsgrove in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Secondly there is significant disagreement about where the boundary between Stoke-on-Trent South and West Staffordshire should lie, very particularly in the Dresden area but also in the Blurton and Trentham areas, although there is also support for the West Staffordshire constituency.

Dresden & Florence

The biggest issue seems to be dislike of the Stoke-on-Trent South / West Staffordshire boundary being placed between the Lightwood & Normacot and Dresden & Florence wards. The concerns include that this splits one coherent community, Dresden & Florence is an urban area with an industrial history that has nothing in common with rural country hamlets, Longton would be separated from its town park and the councillors for the two wards work closely together and it is easier to work with one MP. Some of the alternatives proposed have too severe a knock on effect for the Newcastle-under-Lyme area which has met with approval. But notably the revised proposal I submitted solves this problem by uniting these two wards in Stoke-on-Trent South whilst leaving Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency as proposed by the Boundary Commission.

Blurton

There is some concern about Blurton wards being in West Staffordshire. I would actually agree that their character is more akin to Stoke-on-Trent South. My proposal is flawed because it does not address this but I am unable to find a good solution that will which does not have less acceptable knock on effects elsewhere.

Trentham & Hanford

Concerns that have been submitted include a dislike for the Trentham & Hanford ward being in the West Staffordshire constituency in terms of a lack of commonality between communities, poor transport and having wards from 3 local authorities.

A personal view on Trentham:

Quite a number of contributors have discussed community identity, where a community faces, where its centre of place is and where people typically shop. This has prompted me to think about this more deeply for myself in Trentham. Personally I am quite happy with being in the new West Staffordshire constituency.

There are actually two parts of Trentham, the larger residential area including where I live, in Stoke-on-Trent and a smaller residential area and large leisure and shopping area ‘The Trentham Estate’, which are situated in Swynnerton & Oulton ward in Stafford Borough. The Trentham Estate has developed massively in recent years and includes Trentham Shopping Village. The West Staffordshire constituency would actually unite these two parts of Trentham. So there may be concerns about the new constituencies but there are also advantages.

Where do I shop? Because I am an outdoor type of person with a love of the countryside and walking, in actual fact I do most of my shopping for clothes and equipment in Trentham Shopping Village because it has a number of very good shops for outdoor kit and some other clothes shops. But I also travel to Hanley, Stafford and further afield if necessary for such things. In terms of food shopping I actually do a fair bit of that in Stone, but that is because a fair amount of my personal, social and leisure time is spent there. I am currently chair of Stone Ramblers. But I also shop for food all over the place as convenient.

Perhaps I fit well in West Staffordshire constituency because I am willing and able to travel. But for some others in Trentham the picture may be very different.

Conclusion

I consider that my proposals are still best as far as West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke-on-Trent North are concerned and retain Newcastle-under-Lyme as in the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals.

My proposals would alter the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals as follows:

• Move Dresden & Florence ward from West Staffordshire to Stoke-on-Trent South.
• Move Springfields & Trent Vale ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to West Staffordshire.
• Move Abbey Hulton & Townsend ward from Stoke-on-Trent North to Stoke-on-Trent South.
• Move Hanley Park & Shelton ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to Stoke-on-Trent North.
• Move Joiner's Square ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to Stoke-on-Trent North.

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.

Boundary Review 2018 - 3rd blog

In my last blog I presented my submission to the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) consultation and on 14th November 2016, I attended the hearing in Stafford, chaired by Assistant Commissioner Margaret Gilmore, to highlight my key points and listen to what others had to say. There were presentations from across the region but I have only looked at Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent so only comment on these here.

There were a significant number of speakers contributing their support for the BCE initial proposals. Trudie McGuinness, a Labour party member, spoke in support of the arrangements for the Staffordshire constituencies particularly in the South of the county, as being the best possible arrangement. She particularly supported the proposed Tamworth and Lichfield constituencies.

Martin Lewis, a Liberal Democrat, gave support to the proposals. He expressed regret that Haywood & Hixon ward was in Lichfield constituency and pointed out that the West Staffordshire constituency was the least homogeneous, with wards from 3 Local Authority areas but could not propose a better solution given the constraints so considered it acceptable.

Ian Jenkinson from Newcastle-under-Lyme spoke in favour of the proposed Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency. He particularly liked that the proposal largely follows the Local authority area and that it includes the Kidsgrove wards and transport routes to Newcastle-under-Lyme. He noted that the Western Newcastle-under-Lyme wards were in West Staffordshire but well understood and supported this.

Labour Councillor Allison Gardner of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council also Spoke in favour of the proposal for Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency, citing industrial connections and bringing the Kidsgrove town council areas together. She said that although the rail links from Kidsgrove are with Stoke-on-Trent, the A34 road link is to Newcastle-under-Lyme. She also thought it appropriate to bring together the urban industrial areas while the more rural wards of the Newcastle-under-Lyme authority area were placed in West Staffordshire.

Neil Thomas from Stafford also Spoke out in favour of the proposals but would prefer West Staffordshire to be named North West Staffordshire. He didn't particularly like Hayward & Hixon ward going to the Lichfield constituency but did not see a good way to avoid this given the rules. He liked the arrangement for Stoke-on-Trent having 2 named constituencies because of not having sufficient electorate to justify 3.

On the West Staffordshire or North West Staffordshire question I would say I don't have a strong preference between the two. But I do prefer a more general name such as these than one that names a particular town or lists some towns, given that the constituency covers such a large area.

Most other contributions, such as mine, suggested only minor changes. Mine, given in my last blog, suggested the movement of 5 Stoke-on-Trent wards to bring similar communities together and bring Longton and Hanley's parks into the same constituencies as their town centres. Because I was suggesting moving Springfields & Trent Vale ward into West Staffordshire the issue of having a boundary in Oak Hill in that ward was raised. This is a reasonable point but I still think this is preferable because it allows Dresden & Florence ward to move into Stoke-on-Trent South, uniting communities along a longer boundary there with Lightwood North & Normacot. It was also pointed out that Stoke-on-Trent South would be a more peculiar shape, true but I think it is more important for the right communities to be linked.  As the constituency is not large in area the shape is less important from the point of view of travelling within it. 

Kirsty Bailey from Blurton did not like the Blurton wards being in West Staffordshire. She pointed out that Blurton as a poor area with a lot of social housing and does not fit well with affluent areas like Barlaston.

I would certainly agree that the Blurton wards do have a somewhat different character to other parts of West Staffordshire but within the constraints of electorate numbers cannot see a preferable solution.

There were quite a number of contributions that concerned the borderline between the Lichfield and Tamworth. Geoffrey Hanson from Whittington wanted the Whittington & Streethay ward in the Lichfield, not the Tamworth constituency and cited many links of that ward with Lichfield.

Conservative Councillor David Smith of Staffordshire County Council argued that either Whittington & Streethay ward or Hammerwich with Wall ward would need to be in Tamworth constituency, because of electorate numbers and he thought the arrangement in the initial proposals with Whittington & Streethay in Tamworth was best. But he said there was a strong argument to split these wards so Streethay could go with Lichfield and Wall with Tamworth. He asked for a constituency name change from Tamworth to South East Staffordshire.

Conservative MP for Lichfield, Michael Fabricant, argued against splitting wards but suggested that Whittington & Streethay should go with Lichfield because Streethay is very much a part of Lichfield and he cited links with Whittington. He said Wall is currently in Tamworth constituency so Hammerwich with Wall ward would be better placed with Tamworth.

Jonathan Hall made similar arguments for Whittington & Streethay to go with Lichfield and Hammerwich with Wall to go to Tamworth.

I have to say I found the argument for Whittington & Streethay to go to Lichfield and Hammerwich with Wall to Tamworth very convincing. The Tamworth constituency would be a more peculiar shape but community links I think should outweigh this shortcoming. I also liked the idea to rename the Tamworth constituency South East Staffordshire because it includes a lot of Lichfield Local Authority wards so a more general name is better. But if this were done I would also like to see South Staffordshire constituency renamed South West Staffordshire for symmetry purposes. As an aside I have throughout wanted to rename Burton as East Staffordshire, or if West Staffordshire were named North West Staffordshire then Burton could be named North East Staffordshire to complete a nice set of compass points.

Conservative Councillor Jack Brereton of Stoke-on-Trent City Council gave a talk in two parts. One was on behalf of Karen Bradley MP for Staffordshire Moorlands fully supporting the proposal for the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency. This is a very neat constituency because the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Authority has the right number of electorate to form a constituency. The other part of his talk was the most radical suggestion of the day and requested for the Kidsgrove wards and Talke ward to be in the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, citing good transport links. This clearly has knock on effects for Stoke-on-Trent South, West Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme. The result is actually almost identical to my proposal 1a that I produced before the Boundary Commission proposals were released, the difference being that Talke would be in Stoke-on-Trent North rather than Newcastle-under-Lyme to make the electorate numbers more equal.

Whilst this is quite a good arrangement I still prefer the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals to it, because more areas that are of similar character are grouped together, with of course the minor modifications that I suggested.

I did not attend the second day of presentations at Stafford. It will be interesting to see the transcripts of these and of course all the written contributions when they are published. 

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.

Boundary Review 2018 - 1st blog

History

I wrote previously about the Boundary Review 2013, which was set to revise the parliamentary constituency boundaries but was halted by government after nearing completion, following a disagreement within the then Conservative Lib-dem coalition.

My last blog on this contains links also to my previous blogs. The Boundary Commission for England has moved information on the previous review to archive.

Boundary Review 2018

Despite the name, which refers to the end of the review in 2018, the current review was launched on 24 February 2016 with the relevant electorate data.  The number of constituencies in the UK is reducing from 650 to 600, the number in England is reducing from 533 to 501.

The next step will be the publication by the Commission, on 13 September, of their initial proposals. There will be a 12 week consultation. I would encourage everyone to have their say. In the last review I found the Commission considered people's views very well and were very receptive to alternative ideas. Comments will be possible via their website or in person at public hearings around the country.

My proposals

I live in Hanford & Trentham ward in Stoke-on-Trent.

I have drafted my own proposals for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. My starting point was my previous proposal but since then clearly the electorate numbers have changed and local government boundary reviews result in different wards being used in the Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Lichfield local authority (LA) areas. So using current data and drawing on experience gained from the aborted review, I arrive at my proposal version 1. I have included only a spreadsheet because I worry about copyright for publishing maps, but the relevant wards and LA areas can be viewed on Election Maps.

A review would run periodically every 5 years. For subsequent reviews it would make sense to place a high priority on minimal changes to constituencies just to account for changes in electorate numbers, but for the present review it makes no sense to me to be too concerned about current constituencies as the changes have to be major anyway, to reduce the total number. My priorities have therefore been to keep communities together that have similar geographical area and character and to try to match constituencies to local authority areas, subject to the very tight constraints on electorate numbers that must be adhered to.

I arrived at 3 slightly different proposals. They only differ in the Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford LA areas. In some cases the LA numbers neatly fit to a single constituency, resulting in Cannock Chase and Staffordshire Moorlands constituencies. Lichfield would too except Tamworth is too small without taking wards from Lichfield LA with Tamworth LA wards to give Tamworth Constituency. Most of East Staffordshire can form one constituency, with 3 wards going to the Lichfield constituency. My preferred name would be East Staffordshire constituency but I have listed Burton as an alternative name because I recall from the last review this being favoured by people living in that area. Unfortunately the Lichfield constituency is not big enough without taking one ward from Stafford LA, which is a little messy but I cannot find a better alternative. Most of South Staffordshire LA can form a South Staffordshire constituency, with 3 wards going to the Stafford constituency. 5 Stafford LA wards need to then go into the remaining 3 constituencies.

The three different proposals 1a, 1b and 1c are different ways of arranging the 5 Stafford wards together with Newcastle-under-Lyme LA and Stoke-on-Trent LA wards. In many ways Stoke-on-Trent is the most difficult to deal with because it has electorate numbers of 2.4 times the number for one constituency, so is too big to make 2 constituencies but too small for 3. I recall from the previous review that there seemed to be more willingness from those living in the Northern rather than the Southern Newcastle-under-Lyme wards to combine with Stoke-on-Trent. In Stoke-on-Trent it is important for each of the 6 towns to fit in a constituency without being split.

Proposal 1a takes 4 wards around Kidsgrove with the Northern part of Stoke-on-Trent, neatly encompassing Tunstall and Burslem, to form Stoke-on-Trent North constituency. Much of the rest of urban Stoke-on-Trent, encompassing Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton, forms Stoke-on-Trent South constituency. This achieves all 6 towns in 2 constituencies, leaving the Southern most suburban Stoke-on-Trent wards to combine with the 5 Stafford wards to form West Staffordshire constituency. The slight disadvantage of this proposal is that 3 wards; Dresden & Florence, Hollybush & Longton West and Lightwood North & Normacot, that would normally be more associated with Longton, are split from it, but the A50 does separate them in any case.

Proposal 1b aims to solve the disadvantage of 1a by putting the relevant wards into Stoke-on-Trent South and moving 2 wards; Birches Head & Central Forest Park and Etruria and Hanley, into Stoke-on-Trent North. This quite neatly sorts out the 6 towns, with Tunstall, Burslem and Hanley in the North and Stoke, Fenton and Longton in the South. But it does mean having just a lone Newcastle-under-lyme ward, Newchapel, in Stoke-on-Trent North and bringing Loggerheads & Whitmore and Madeley out of Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency into West Staffordshire constituency. I think this is messier for Newcastle-under-Lyme and means having 3 LAs rather than 2 in West Staffordshire. So I favour 1a over 1b.

Proposal 1c is an experiment with a more radical approach to solve the issues with proposals 1a and 1b. It uses the same Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent North constituencies as 1a. But the other wards are arranged into Stoke-on-Trent East and Stoke-on-Trent West & Stone. This works and the 6 towns are neatly arranged 2 in each constituency but the Stoke-on-Trent West & Stone constituency I do not think is especially desirable because it combines very urban and quite rural areas. So I favour 1a over 1c.