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 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.

Submission to Boundary Commission for England Consultation ending 5th December 2011

On 2nd December 2011 I submitted the proposal below to the Boundary Review 2013 consultation. As contributions will not be published until the Spring, I have chosen to publish mine now, but as I do not have permission to publish maps, some of the files referred to are not included here. My spreadsheet nevertheless contains all the information.


Introduction

I am an ordinary member of the public with an interest in local communities and representational democracy. I am not a member of any political party and tend in recent years to be very much a floating voter. I consider all the candidates and a range of issues but often tend towards a preference for independent candidates if suitable ones are standing in an election. The reasons for my proposals are not dependent on any party politics.

I gave a presentation (see NickyDavisPresentationToBCE.ppt attached) at the boundary hearing in Stafford on Monday 14th November, but also opt to provide this more detailed written submission. In providing this I note that as well as a submission for the attention of the Boundary Commission, as part of the ongoing consultation it will be read by other people, so I bear in mind other audiences in making this submission. I have made a minor change in my proposals since the boundary hearing, which I explain later.

I live in Trentham in Stoke-on-Trent and I am providing an alternative proposal for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region of the West Midlands region only.

General views on MPs and ward boundaries

As a grass roots democrat I actually disagree with the reduction in MPs being inflicted on us by the current government; I think democracy is better served by maximising involvement and devolution. However the act of parliament requires the reduction so I would rather express a view on how the constituencies are reorganised than not.

I also disagree with the reduction in Stoke-on-Trent, prior to this year’s elections, in the number of councillors, the scrapping of elections by thirds (local votes 3 years out of 4) and replacement with whole council elections (only 1 year out of 4) and the accompanying ward boundary changes from 3 member wards throughout to a haphazard mess of 1,2 and 3 member wards. This was inflicted on Stoke-on-Trent by the previous government. They imposed an unelected governance commission to dictate to the city, followed by an unelected transition board, the purpose of which seemed to me to be to reduce the democratic contribution of local people.

Despite the legitimate council vote not to move to whole council elections, the previous government used the dictatorial Local Government Act 2000 to force whole council elections on us. Then the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) was brought in to complete the ward boundary mess and slash the number of councillors from 60 to 44. Atrociously this also cut short by 1 year the legitimate 4 year mandate of 20 of our councillors, denying those councillors and the public who elected them decent democratic rights.

It was clear to me from the LGBCE consultation:

http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/west-midlands/staffordshire/stoke-on-trent-electoral-review

that almost everyone preferred a uniform system with the same number of councillors per ward across the city and that most ordinary people preferred this to be 2 member wards at least. This is not what the LGBCE decided.

I was one of the constituents who went to see my MP, Rob Flello, to ask him to pray against the LGBCE result in parliament, but he wouldn't, despite previously saying he thought Stoke-on-Trent needs 80 councillors. Politicians may pretend they want more public engagement, but reducing our voting rights contradicts this.

The reason this discussion of ward boundaries has some small relevance is that I don’t particularly mind the fact that the current constituency boundary review has regard to the 2010 ward boundaries rather than the 2011 ward boundaries. I have no affinity with the 2011 system or boundaries and I certainly don’t like the undemocratic way these were brought about in Stoke-on-Trent. In any case the rules require that the 2010 wards are used. It is a little inconsistent that the electorate numbers used are the 2011 election numbers, that didn’t apply in the 2010 election using the 2010 wards, but it does not make much difference and my proposals work with either the 2011 or 2010 electorate figures. In any case, again the rules require the 2011 numbers to be used.

Numbers

Following a parliamentary decision, the number of MPs in the UK has to be reduced from 650 to 600 giving an average UK electoral quota of 76,641. In England a reduction from 533 to 502 constituencies is required, of which 2 must be for the Isle of Wight. 54 constituencies are needed for the West Midlands region as used for the European elections. This is divided into sub-regions including one for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to have 11 constituencies. With a total electorate of 841,133, this means an average of 76,467 each. The act of parliament requires the electorate in a constituency must not be more than 5% different from the UK quota. Each constituency must therefore have an electorate between 72,810 and 80,473.

I agree with the definition of the regions and sub-regions and approve of the use of the West Midlands region and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-regions with these boundaries not being crossed. The constituency numbers are appropriate given the demands of the act of parliament.

I agree with the principle of electoral equality although it can be appreciated that elected representatives do in practice have dealings with the entire population in their constituency or ward, not just the electorate. I think that the constraint for the electorate to be within 5% of the UK quota is quite tight and may prevent the most appropriate boundaries being defined in some cases, particularly in areas where large wards are in place and the aim is not to split these. We must nevertheless endeavour to do the best possible to respect community links. I personally think 10% would have been a better margin for variation but the act of parliament must be followed.

Ethos and methodology

My approach has been to put the greatest emphasis on local communities, geography, current and historical links and a strong emphasis on trying to match constituencies with local authorities. My reasoning is that I think this structure focuses on the issues that affect people’s lives locally and in an ideal world would feed ideas from the grass roots via the MPs to influence policy in parliament. Of course we don’t live in an ideal world but we can strive to do the best we can in that direction.

I don't regard matching the new constituencies with existing ones as that important. Indeed, with the reduction in MPs there is little point trying to retain existing constituencies as that is logically destined to fail. If a future review were only changing boundaries in order to balance electorate numbers, whilst retaining the same number of MPs, then I think regard to the previous constituency boundaries would have much more relevance and a minimal change to achieve electoral equality would be desirable. But given that in the current review the number of constituencies must be reduced, requiring significant changes, I put a much higher priority on the opportunity to match constituencies with local authorities as much as possible.

I can understand how the changes are disruptive to MPs if they think they are likely to be selected and elected again, but it was the MPs collectively who decided we should have this boundary review. Also whilst I can see MPs may wish to define constituencies that suit them personally, where that differs from the wishes of local communities ordinary people should take priority and knock on effects need also to be considered. From an ordinary person’s point of view, our existing MP may not decide to stand again in the area, may not be selected by their party, or may even not be elected again, so there is no guarantee of continuity anyway. Given these factors I think a focus on local links and local authorities is appropriate.

As a resident in the area I have the advantages of local knowledge and that I can focus on detailed links for this one small area. Other local people can provide similar input. In comparison the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) has to consider the whole of England and did not consult to discover local views on the boundaries prior to publishing initial proposals. The current consultation therefore is where interested local people such as myself can help the BCE arrive at more appropriate proposals based on local views.

I am strongly of the view that the BCE should choose local proposals such as mine in preference to their initial proposals, because local people should define such issues, according to my grass roots philosophy anyway. The BCE is useful for collating, publishing and facilitating compromise amongst local views and for making decisions in areas where there is little local interest.

I am not myself dismissive of other local views I have heard about, but at this stage of the consultation the focus is meant to be on comparing our individual proposals with the BCE initial proposals. When all our consultation contributions are published we will be able to access a comprehensive set of local views and at that stage will have the opportunity to comment on each other’s proposals.

Comparison of my current proposals with those I presented at Stafford

The only changes I have made since the Stafford hearing are to my proposed Newcastle-under-Lyme and West Staffordshire constituencies.

Although I am aware I have not yet heard a comprehensive set of views, those I heard during the short time at Stafford and have heard elsewhere led me to review my proposals. Three issues I particularly considered were; community links between Northern wards of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent local authorities, the lack of strong links between Western Newcastle-under-Lyme wards and Northern Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent wards and the strength of links between Clayton and Seabridge wards with neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme wards.

I could not find any neat alternative way to divide the Stoke-on-Trent wards between constituencies than the one I had originally deduced. The main difficulty is that the wards are large so there are not many sensible ways to do this. I therefore decided not to propose combining Northern Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent wards because I consider a sensible arrangement of the 6 towns within two Stoke-on-Trent wards to be of greater importance.

The changes I have made do address the other two issues though, by placing Clayton and Seabridge in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Halmerend and Audley and Bignall End in West Staffordshire. I like this result better than my previous proposals because it concentrates the more urban wards largely in Newcastle-under-Lyme and the more rural wards largely in West Staffordshire.

Comparison of my proposals with the BCE initial proposals

There are substantial areas of agreement between my proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region and the BCE initial proposals.

Please refer to the files attached for my proposals:

• NickyDavisFinalMap.pdf for the constituency map.
• NickyDavisMapKey.pdf adds notes to the map.
• BoundaryReview2013NickyDavis3.xls for details on the numbers.

Numbers details are also available at:

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

The BCE initial proposals are of course at:

http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/whats-proposed/west-midlands/staffordshire-and-stoke-on-trent/

and further BCE numbers details are given at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdG8xXzI1Z1VpQmtZR19aXzlSM0NSenc&hl=en_GB#gid=0

I am strongly in favour of the well defined Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region outer boundary, in agreement with the BCE.

With a view to community identity and links and the aim of matching constituencies with local authorities, of the 9 local authorities in the Staffordshire area, 3, Cannock Chase, Lichfield and Staffordshire Moorlands, have electorate in the correct range to neatly become constituencies.

Geography of the sub-region makes it impossible to have Lichfield local authority as a constituency because Tamworth would be too small. However it is possible to define Staffordshire Moorlands and Cannock Chase local authority areas as constituencies, so I am strongly in favour of these and have incorporated them in my proposals in agreement with the BCE.

I also agree with the BCE on the boundary for East Staffordshire, but I prefer the name East Staffordshire to the BCE suggestion of Burton, because I wish to match the constituency name with the local authority name for the wards it contains. This is consistent with the approach taken for other constituencies. My boundaries in the Northeast of the sub-region are therefore the same as the BCE proposals.

I agree with the BCE on the outer boundaries of:

• the 4 constituencies encompassing Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and areas to the South of these (which I will refer to as Sub-region Northwest),
• the 2 constituencies Lichfield and Tamworth (which I will refer to as Sub-region Southeast),
• the 2 constituencies Stafford and South Staffordshire (which I will refer to as Sub-region Southwest).

Sub-region Northwest:

The biggest difference between my proposals and the BCE ones turns out to be around my area of Trentham and Stoke-on-Trent. I live in the 2010 Trentham and Hanford ward in Stoke-on-Trent.

Stoke-on-Trent will not divide neatly into 2 or 3 constituencies. If combined with Newcastle-under-Lyme the total will not divide neatly into 3 or 4 constituencies, so the outcome for my area is destined to be a bit messy. This is compounded by the Stoke-on-Trent 2010 wards being large.

Stoke-on-Trent is historically a combination of 6 towns: Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, Longton, each of which still retain a strong identity. Areas such as Trentham where I live have a village history and still retain some geographical separation.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council contains 2.4 UK quota of electorate so good local ties could be well represented by locating the 6 towns in 2 core Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and allocating some peripheral areas outside these. This is the basis for my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, containing Tunstall and Burslem and my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, containing Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton. I prefer these to the BCE proposals which split Burslem at its centre and leave Burslem North and Tunstall outside the city constituencies. Stoke is also split. The BCE report states that it seeks to respect the Southern boundary of the city but I cannot see that this is more important than respecting the Northern boundary and the 6 towns.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council contains 1.3 UK quota of electorate so I have aimed to keep most of it in one constituency, joining 4 rural wards with neighbouring Stafford Borough wards and Southern peripheral wards of Stoke-on-Trent. I prefer this to the BCE proposals which split Newcastle-under-Lyme nearly equally in two and combine the wards around the town centre with Stone and Southern rural areas.

My proposal has 8 of the 2010 Stoke-on-Trent wards in each Stoke-on-Trent constituency leaving 4 more peripheral wards; Trentham and Hanford where I live, Blurton, Meir Park and Sandon and Weston and Meir North, to join with other villages such as Barlaston and the town of Stone, in Stafford Borough. Similarly my proposal has most Newcastle-under-Lyme wards in Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency leaving 4 rural wards; Audley and Bignall End, Halmerend, Madeley and Loggerheads and Whitmore, to join with the Stoke-on-Trent wards mentioned and Stafford Borough wards. This seems reasonable in terms of the geography and history of the areas involved. Trentham is currently split between local authorities with the smaller part in Stafford Borough. However my aim is not primarily to unite these, it is focused on the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent and central Newcastle-under-Lyme. The constituency I propose for my area includes wards from 3 different local authorities, but I think this is an acceptable compromise considering the character of the areas and the coherence of the proposals overall. In a purely self-centred sense I would not be unhappy, if the numbers were different, with remaining in a Stoke-on-Trent only constituency. But the UK quota laid down in law does not allow this for the whole city and I prefer a solution that relates well to local links throughout the wider area.

Sub-region Southeast:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southeast of the sub-region. There are two wards where there is a difference: Whittington and Hammerwich. Whittington is a rural ward and in character is better placed with the rural wards around Tamworth than with Lichfield, this placement also gives the Tamworth constituency a better geographical shape. Hammerwich ward encompasses part of Burntwood, so it makes sense for this ward to be in the same constituency as the other Burntwood wards. In addition the A461 provides a very clear geographical separation between Hammerwich and wards to the Southeast.

Sub-region Southwest:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southwest of the sub-region. There is only one ward where there is a difference: Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley. I would place this ward in the same constituency as most of the other South Staffordshire District Council wards, which makes better sense to me. Additionally, the Northern boundary of the ward is better defined geographically than the Southern boundary which cuts through Kiddemore Green. My proposals have the advantage of placing the whole of Kiddemore Green in the same constituency.

Names:

My approach to naming constituencies is to match the names with the local authority name for the bulk of the wards in the constituency. Most of the names I have chosen are therefore self-explanatory. This is the reason why I prefer the name East Staffordshire over the BCE suggestion of Burton. I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Burton but I think my suggestion is more logical.

There are two Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and I have chosen to call them Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South. I far prefer this to the BCE suggestion of Stoke-on-Trent Central and Stoke-on-Trent South, as this appears illogical and anyone not knowing the area would wonder why there is no Stoke-on-Trent North.

I propose the name West Staffordshire for the constituency comprised of parts of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough, Stafford Borough and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils. The three separate names have already been used for other constituencies and the name West Staffordshire pairs well with East Staffordshire. This West Staffordshire constituency has a fair amount in common with the previous Stone constituency. I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Stone but I think my suggestion is neater.

Conclusion

I present proposals which improve on the BCE initial proposals. I am sure there will be other proposals which disagree with mine, some of which may be better. Where I have made suggestions further from where I live, the views of those living in those areas must take priority. The important point is that the most local views should prevail but knock on effects must be considered and compromises arrived at. The key most important points for me, close to where I live, is that the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent should be neatly located within Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and the bulk of central Newcastle-under-Lyme should be located in one constituency. I also favour the Staffordshire Moorlands, Cannock Chase and East Staffordshire boundaries as suggested in the BCE initial proposals.

 

Nicky Davis

http://nickydavis.blogspot.com/

Twitter: Nicky_Davis_

Boundary Review 2013 – 3rd blog

Boundary hearing – Stafford

I gave a presentation at the boundary hearing in Stafford on Monday 14^th November, of my ideas discussed in a previous blog.  This is an account of my experience of it.  I could only attend after work, so that limited me to only about an hour out of 2 days of presentations, so unfortunately I cannot give an account of other contributions, but the Boundary Commission will publish these.

Venue

The venue, the county building at Martin Street, Stafford, was not great because parking was difficult.  If I’d not been working and had plenty of time, I could easily have travelled by bus from Trentham.  However as I was dashing there from work I had to travel by car.  I got there by 6.30pm and was due to speak at 7pm.

Mediocre performance

I think I did ok but not brilliantly.  I had practiced my talk which took 10 minutes.  That was what I was allowed so I felt I shouldn’t dither too much.  I had prepared a few handouts of my spreadsheet but to avoid disruption only gave them to a few interested people afterwards.  I used a powerpoint presentation which essentially compared my proposals with the Boundary Commission initial proposals using maps instead of spreadsheets.  (I’m not publishing the maps here because I still worry about copyright but contributions will appear on the Boundary Commission web site in due course).

Technology

I struggled with the technology a bit.  The computer provided and microphones were in front of me while the screen was behind me.  I needed to point to the maps but failed to use the cursor/arrow because it was very sensitive, I know I have my own computers set less sensitively than average.  So I gave up on that and resorted to a laser pointer, which showed up well on the screen.  But the difficulty was I had to stand to do this so was too far from the microphones really.  I have no trouble making myself heard but for the transcription microphone it may not have worked out well.  I don’t know how well others coped as the other speakers there that evening did not use the computer.

Key points

Because of the trouble at the start I messed up the introduction a bit.  I said I was an ordinary member of the public but forgot to mention that I’m not a member of any political party.  I said I was focussing on community links but didn’t point out at the outset that my emphasis was on matching constituencies to local authority areas as far as possible and had to work this in later.

I made the following points:

1. I agree with the Boundary Commission on boundaries for

•    Staffordshire Moorlands.
•    East Staffordshire (BCE Burton).
•  Cannock Chase.
•  Outer boundary of the 4 constituencies encompassing SOT, NUL and areas to the South of these.
•  Outer boundary of the 2 constituencies Stafford and South Staffordshire.
•  Outer boundary of the 2 constituencies Lichfield and Tamworth.

2. SOT has 2.4 UK quota of electorate so have 2 SOT only constituencies keeping the 6 towns in them; Tunstall and Burslem in SOT North and Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton in SOT South.  Disadvantage of BCE proposal is Tunstall is outside SOT constituencies and Burslem and Stoke are cut though their centres.

3. NUL has 1.3 UK quota of electorate so keep most in 1 NUL only constituency.  Disadvantage of BCE proposal is NUL is cut in half. 

4. Have a largely rural constituency to the South of SOT and NUL to include some areas from these.

5. At Lichfield - Tamworth border have Hammerwich ward in Lichfield and Whittington ward in Tamworth; this unites rather than splits Burntwood and places Whittington with other rural wards around Tamworth.

6. At Stafford - South Staffordshire border have Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley ward in South Staffordshire constituency, consistent with LA.

7. I have named constituencies to match LA names as much as possible, which is why I have chosen the names East Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme.  For Stoke-on-Trent it seems sensible for 2 constituencies to call them North and South.  I have chosen the name West Staffordshire because the LA names have been used and it pairs well with East Staffordshire.

8. Local people should decide boundaries.

Questions

The questions I had from the Boundary Commission chair sought to establish the extent of the links between the 4 wards I had placed outside 2 Stoke-on-Trent constituencies; Trentham and Hanford, Blurton, Meir Park and Sandon, Weston and Meir North and the areas to the South of these.  These were fair questions and I discussed the geographical separation of Trentham and Hanford and its village history, giving it similarities to villages such as Barlaston to the South.  However I didn’t put any more emphasis than this on Trentham, where I live.  I could have mentioned it would be nice to unite the bulk of Trentham in Stoke-on-Trent to the part of Trentham in Stafford Borough, but didn’t because my key aim is much less about Trentham and primarily about finding a solution that neatly encompasses the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent in 2 constituencies and the vast majority of Newcastle-under-Lyme in 1 constituency.  I did reiterate that the numbers constraint just means some Stoke-on-Trent areas have to be placed in another constituency.

I had not expected the hearing to include questions from the audience but Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, asked good questions I was happy to answer.  He asked why I had included the Northern Newcastle-under-Lyme wards; Newchapel, Kidsgrove, Ravenscliffe, Talke and Butt Lane, in a Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency.  I explained I was matching the constituency with the LA and it fitted around the neighbouring constituencies.  I had not included the Southern wards Clayton and Seabridge, which Paul didn’t like especially as he is from Clayton.  I said living in Trentham I perceive links to Clayton but admitted again it has much to do with numbers constraints.

I can understand how the changes are disruptive to MPs if they think they are likely to be selected and elected again, but it was the MPs collectively who decided we should have this boundary review.  I don’t personally agree with the reduction in MPs but as we have to do it I think there is little point trying to retain existing constituencies as that is logically destined to fail.  So we might as well focus on local links and local authorities although the numbers tightly restrict this.  Also, from an ordinary person’s point of view, our existing MP may not decide to stand again in the area or may not be selected by their party, so there is no guarantee of continuity anyway.

Other speakers

As I couldn’t attend much of the hearing and didn’t take notes, I cannot give a reliable account of other contributions, but the Boundary Commission will publish these.

I recall one person who spoke in favour of the Boundary Commission’s proposals, especially for Staffordshire Moorlands, I agree for that constituency.  There was another argument made in favour of linking Stone with the split Newcastle, which I can’t agree with.  A point made was the link for students travelling in to Newcastle private school.  I think this is a weak argument as it is irrelevant to the vast majority of the population and those who attend private schools often travel a distance anyway.  A speaker from Audley opposed the Boundary Commission’s proposed Kidsgrove and Tunstall constituency and said there were no links with Audley and it seemed as if it were just for the left-overs.

Written submission

I shall back up my proposal with a written submission, as it was impossible to cover all points in the 10 minute hearing.  I may even look into whether I could submit more than one suggestion, but time is likely to rule that out as I have a very busy life.  It would be nice if the next 4 week consultation stage were during the Christmas holidays when I have more time, but I expect it is more likely to be January.  It will be good to see a full set of everyone’s ideas.

Boundary Review 2013 – 2nd blog

Prior work

In my 1^st blog on the Boundary Review 2013 I reported on calculations I had done and possible constituencies I had arrived at for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region, prior to publication of the Boundary Commission for England initial proposals.

Maps and electorate figures

Since publication we have had access to the BCE maps, which are helpful in providing an overview of the whole sub-region as part of the West Midlands map.  Prior to that I only had election maps, which were and still are very useful but do not zoom out far enough for an overview.  I have to confess I just love maps!  As a result of looking at the maps I have made some changes to my proposals although these are fairly minor. 

I also added the 2011 electorate figures to my current spreadsheet.  The BCE is using 2011 figures, which makes better sense, but 2010 ward boundaries, which is a little inconsistent.  I had misunderstood that 2010 figures must be used by act of parliament but this is just for defining the UK quota; 76,641 and constituency minimum; 72,810 and maximum; 80,473, then the 2011 figures must be used.  My proposals work with both 2010 and 2011 figures anyway. 

I have coloured in a map for my proposals and compared with the BCE.  I do not publish my map here for fear of inadvertently breaching copyright but the BCE will be publishing contributions including mine.

Ethos and methodology

My approach has been to put the greatest emphasis on local communities, geography, current and historical links and a strong emphasis on trying to match constituencies with local authorities.  My reasoning is that I think this structure focuses on the issues that affect people’s lives locally and in an ideal world would feed ideas from the grass roots via the MPs to influence policy in parliament.  Of course we don’t live in an ideal world but we can strive to do the best we can in that direction.

I don't regard matching the new constituencies with existing ones as that important, the reduction in number means significant changes anyway and I put a higher priority on the opportunity to match constituencies with local authorities.

As a resident in the area I have the advantages of local knowledge and that I can focus on detailed links for this one small area.  In comparison the BCE has to consider the whole of England and did not consult to discover local views prior to publishing its initial proposals.  The consultation comes now, after publication.  So this is where interested local people such as myself can help the BCE arrive at more appropriate proposals based on local views.

Comparison of my proposals with the BCE initial proposals

There are substantial areas of agreement between my proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region and the BCE ones.  The area I selected to present proposals for exactly matches the sub-region chosen by the BCE.

Sub-region Northwest:

The biggest difference between my proposals and the BCE ones turns out to be around my area of Trentham and Stoke-on-Trent.  The city is historically a combination of 6 towns; Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, Longton, each of which still retain a strong identity.  Areas such as Trentham where I live have a village history and still retain some geographical separation. 

Stoke-on-Trent City Council contains 2.4 UK quota of electorate so good local ties could be well represented by locating the 6 towns in 2 core Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and allocating some peripheral areas outside these.  This is the basis for my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, containing Tunstall and Burslem and my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, containing Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton.  I prefer these to the BCE proposals which split Burslem at it’s centre and leave Burslem North and Tunstall outside the city constituencies.  The BCE report states that it seeks to respect the Southern boundary of the city but I cannot see that this is more important than respecting the Northern boundary and the 6 towns. 

My proposal has 8 of the old 2010 Stoke-on-Trent wards in each constituency leaving 4 more peripheral wards including Trentham and Hanford where I live to join with other villages such as Barlaston and the town of Stone.  This seems reasonable in terms of the geography and history of the areas involved.  It does mean that the constituency I propose for my area includes wards from 3 different local authorities, but I think this is an acceptable compromise considering the character of the areas and the coherence of the proposals overall.  In a purely self centred sense I would not be unhappy, if the numbers were different, with remaining in a Stoke-on-Trent only constituency.  But the UK quota laid down in law does not allow this for the whole city and I prefer a solution that relates well to local links throughout the wider area.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council contains 1.3 UK quota of electorate so I have aimed to keep most of it in one constituency, joining 4 Southern and rural wards with the Southern peripheral wards of Stoke-on-Trent.  I prefer this to the BCE proposals which split the Borough nearly equally in two and combine the wards around Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre with Stone and Southern rural areas.

Having considered the significant areas of difference between my proposals and the BCE proposals for these 4 constituencies, there is a major agreement; the outer boundary of this Northwest section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region is identical.

Sub-region Southwest:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southwest of the sub-region.  There is only one ward where there is a difference: Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley.  I would place this ward in the same constituency as most of the other South Staffordshire District Council wards, which makes better sense to me.  Additionally, the Northern boundary of the ward is better defined geographically than the Southern boundary which cuts through Kiddemore Green.  My proposals have the advantage of placing the whole of Kiddemore Green in the same constituency.

My proposal for Cannock Chase is identical to the BCE proposal and the outer boundary for the 3 constituencies of this Southwest section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region is also identical.

Sub-region Southeast:

My proposals are almost identical to the BCE proposals in the Southeast of the sub-region.  There are two wards where there is a difference: Whittington and Hammerwich.  Whittington is a rural ward and in character is better placed with the rural wards around Tamworth than with Lichfield, this placement also gives the Tamworth constituency a better geographical shape.  Hammerwich ward encompasses part of Burntwood, so it makes sense for this ward to be in the same constituency as the other Burntwood wards.  In addition the A461 provides a very clear geographical separation between Hammerwich and wards to the Southeast.

My proposals have an outer boundary for the 2 constituencies of this Southeast section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region identical to the BCE proposals.

Sub-region Northeast:

My proposals for the 2 constituencies of the Northeast section of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region are in complete agreement with the BCE proposals, apart from names.

Names

My approach to naming constituencies is to match the names with the local authority name for the bulk of the wards in the constituency.  Most of the names I have chosen are therefore self-explanatory.  This is the reason why I prefer the name East Staffordshire over the BCE suggestion of Burton.  I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Burton but I think my suggestion is more logical. 

There are two Stoke-on-Trent constituencies and I have chosen to call them Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South.  I far prefer this to the BCE suggestion of Stoke-on-Trent Central and Stoke-on-Trent South, as this appears illogical and anyone not knowing the area would wonder why there is no Stoke-on-Trent North.

I propose the name West Staffordshire for the constituency comprised of parts of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough, Stafford Borough and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils.  The three separate names have already been used for other constituencies and the name West Staffordshire pairs well with East Staffordshire.  This West Staffordshire constituency has a fair amount in common with the previous Stone constituency.  I don’t have any strong objection to the name of Stone but I think my suggestion is neater. 

Politics

Party politics are to play no part in the boundary decisions but I will make brief comment on my area for the sake of the blog.  My proposals would put me in West Staffordshire which would be a safe Conservative seat whereas the BCE proposals would put me in Stoke-on-Trent South which would be a safe Labour seat.  My reasons for my proposals have nothing to do with party politics; I have never voted tory.  Future candidates imposed by the political parties may or may not be the current MPs.  An awful tory could be chosen but equally well an awful labourite could be chosen.  I am a complete cynic when it comes to party politics.  I'm not keen on any of the political parties and I’m not likely to vote for the MP I end up with unless there are no alternatives or the alternatives are even more dire.  I’d be inclined to vote for a decent independent, but if there were one they wouldn’t win anyway.  All I can do is hope the individual the party lands me with is willing to be a good representative and puts local people ahead of party loyalty when it really matters.

My reasons for my boundary proposals are based purely on local character, geography, current and historical links.  Having reviewed and modified my initial ideas a little and paused due to being busy then returned, I am now pretty happy with my proposals within the constraints specified by the law.

Proposals

My current proposals are:

Nicky's second spreadsheet

I am strongly of the view that the BCE should choose local proposals such as mine in preference to their initial proposals, because local people should define such issues, according to my grass roots philosophy anyway.  The BCE is useful for collating, publishing and facilitating compromise amongst local views and for making decisions in areas where there is little local interest.

I look forward to seeing other local views for the Staffordshire area when the BCE publish them.