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 2013 - Revised Proposals - Final Consultation

The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) following a consultation on their initial proposals and a second consultation on representations received on these, has now produced a set of revised proposals. The final consultation on these is now taking place, for a deadline of 10th December 2012. I would encourage people to contribute, whether in favour of the proposals or against. My submission, endorsing the revised proposals for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, is given at the foot of this blog.

This blog follows previous blogs on the Boundary Review 2013; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

It is widely thought that the outcome of the boundary review will be thrown out by parliament irrespective of what it contains, due to bickering between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the coalition. So what's the point of engaging with the review any further? Well, there are actually a number of reasons:

• This is the first of a rolling series of boundary reviews initiated by the 
  Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011
  It must by law continue in the absence of any further legislation to stop it, so we might as well try to make the best of it. Taking part in the process allows better experience to be gained, both by those conducting the review and members of the public participating, so this can be used to inform actions to be taken in future reviews, regardless of whether the current outcome sinks or swims in parliament.
  
  
• Specifically, it would seem sensible to embrace the body of local knowledge and opinion that has informed the revised proposals. It would also seem sensible that the final proposals arrived at in this review form a starting point for considerations to be made in the next review, regardless of whether these proposals make it through parliament or not. So completing this review thoroughly provides the best basis for the next one.
  
  
• It looks like most MPs are not destined to treat the content of the final proposals seriously and have largely decided what way to vote according to their party political games, without sight of the final proposals. Why should we as local people let such actions stop us making our contributions? No, I think it's better that we carry on and at least have our input on record.
  
  
• Perhaps the proposals will actually be passed by parliament. I know that's not expected to happen but party politically the divide putting Labour and Liberal Democrats on one side and Conservatives on the other is quite finely balanced. I expect there is a likelihood that more of the 'others' will oppose the proposals and more rebels within the 'main parties' would oppose rather than endorse the proposals, but there will also be some who abstain or absent themselves. Also, who knows what further political games may play out between now and the vote. If the proposals were by surprise to be passed by parliament, it would be better to have contributed completely.
  
  

Despite reservations I have about the Act of parliament itself, expressed in previous blogs, I have found the consultation process a largely positive one. It was not so good that the initial proposals were produced without local input, however since that point the consultation has been largely well conducted, despite scope for improvement which I address in my submission. I was actually very cynical about individuals such as myself, not being a member of any political party, being taken seriously. Part of my cynicism comes from experiences with Stoke-on-Trent City Council so-called 'consultations'. In the case of the boundary review however, the points made, evidence raised and alternatives presented by everyone were considered and used as a basis for real changes in order for the revised proposals to better match the wishes of the majority within the constraints of the legislation. 

Of course I do feel particularly positive because the review, see West Midlands Revised Proposals Report, has incorporated (page 39) almost all aspects of my alternative proposals (pages 31-33).  I congratulate the Assistant Commissioners for the West Midlands region for the care taken in consideration of all the representations. The revised proposals for the West Midlands region can be found as a large map and as constituency and ward lists by viewing the West Midlands revised proposals annex.  Maps are available for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent   individual constituencies with further details in the WM R STAFFORDSHIRE sheet of West Midlands revised proposals by sub region.

Response to Boundary Commission for England Revised Proposals

Nicky Davis

Introduction

I would like to commend the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) and in particular the Assistant Commissioners for the West Midlands region for running a thorough, inclusive and well reasoned consultation. I fully endorse the revised proposals for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent sub-region.

I am very pleased that the alternative proposals submitted by individuals, including myself, as well as political parties, were considered. The assistant commissioners adopted a sensible approach, noting the concerns of all residents, even those not submitting alternatives or providing limited alternatives and identifying the key issues which their initial proposals did not satisfy. Then all alternative proposals were examined to investigate the extent to which these could address the issues to satisfy the concerns of the bulk of residents in a way which worked within the rules for the entire sub-region. Importantly, the proposals were significantly revised in light of the alternatives presented and the concerns of local communities. I admit I had been cynical about the possibility of actually being properly listened to, but that is probably due to experience of Stoke-on-Trent City Council 'consultations'. In this case however the BCE did run a genuine consultation although they were naturally constrained by legislation. I am particularly pleased that the revised proposals have incorporated almost all of the suggestions I made in my alternative proposals.

Key issues

The key issues raised by a large number of residents were that they did not wish to see splits in communities with historical and current relevance such as the core urban area of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent, particularly Burslem, which were present in the BCE's initial proposals. There was also a widely held desire amongst Staffordshire Moorlands residents for the constituency to match the local authority area, in agreement with the BCE's initial proposals and strong views from areas such as Biddulph and Werrington to remain in Staffordshire Moorlands in preference to combining with parts of Stoke-on-Trent constituencies. There was also a desire to keep Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme electorally separate. As a resident of Trentham in Stoke-on-Trent I personally agree with all of these sentiments.

I had submitted three slightly different alternative proposals in the second consultation on the initial proposals, of which two are given at the links:

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

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

It is however the following link

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

(also attached as a file “BoundaryReview2013NickyDavis3” in xlsx, ods and pdf formats) which was the one which has been for the most part adopted in the revised proposals, so this is the one to which I shall refer in my comments now.

Endorsement of revised proposals for 'South Staffordshire'

The ‘South Staffordshire’ area (the area covered by the initially proposed constituencies of Burton, Cannock Chase, Lichfield, South Staffordshire, Stafford and Tamworth) presented fewer highly contentious issues.

I had suggested it would be sensible to place the Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley ward in the South Staffordshire Constituency and this would avoid splitting Kiddemore Green and I am happy to see this in the revised proposals. I had also suggested placing Whittington ward in the Tamworth constituency and Hammerwich ward in the Lichfield constituency to unite Burntwood and make use of the A461 geographical separation. This suggestion has not been adopted and these wards have been maintained the other way around in the revised proposals. I had also suggested changing the name of the Burton constituency to East Staffordshire to match the local authority name but this has not found favour. I am nevertheless content with these aspects of the revised proposals as I don't live very locally to these areas and have not read all the representations relating to them. I trust the Assistant Commissioners to have done this, taken proper account of local views, which is what matters most and not found cause in those views to make the changes I suggested.

Endorsement of revised proposals for 'North Staffordshire'

There were far greater difficulties with the 'North Staffordshire' area (the area covered by the initially proposed constituencies of Kidsgrove and Tunstall, Newcastle under Lyme and Stone, Staffordshire Moorlands, Stoke on Trent Central and Stoke on Trent South). There were several alternatives presented in addition to my own (IP/025156 and CR/003080), which are all discussed in the West Midlands revised proposals:

http://assets.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2900322_WestMidlands_ACCESSIBLE-2.pdf

pages 25-34, including my own alternatives, pages 31-33. It can be noted that for some reason my attachment has disappeared from CR/003080 but the submission made can be found within my blog at:

http://nickydavis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/boundary-review-2013-second.html

and I am attaching it again now (pdf file ”NickyDavisCR003080”).

The Labour party proposals (IP/025315 and CR/005106), had the advantage of rectifying the splits in Burslem and Newcastle-under-Lyme but brought the Biddulph area into Stoke-on-Trent North and the Werrington area into Stoke-on-Trent Central, which would be deeply unpopular and adversely impact Staffordshire Moorlands as a whole.

Henry Parocki, a resident of Wolverhampton, put forward similar but slightly different proposals (IP/019672 and IP/008834) to Labour, with the same advantage and drawbacks.

Adrian Bailey (IP30026) put forward proposals with a great deal of merit, in that they united Staffordshire Moorlands and avoided splits in Burslem and Newcastle-under-Lyme and brought the village of Madeley into Newcastle-under-Lyme which would please residents there. Under his proposals I would live in his Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone constituency and would personally be satisfied with that. However his proposals mean spreading the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent between 3 constituencies in a 2-3-1 split and leaving the town of Stoke isolated in one of them. I think my proposals for a 2 constituency 2-4 split are preferable. Currently in Stoke-on-Trent the council is planning to squander millions of pounds of our taxes moving the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley, whilst cutting and closing numerous public services and facilities. This is deeply unpopular and part of the concern amongst ordinary folk is the detrimental future for Stoke. To apparently isolate Stoke further may not prove desirable. Also Adrian's inclusion of more Stoke-on-Trent wards than I do with other wards to the South may make the proposals less palatable to those outside the city. So I think the revised proposals adopting my suggestions are marginally better.

Stephen Whittaker, a non-party political resident of Urmston, Manchester, put forward proposals (IP/025396 and CR/003585) the same as mine apart from the names of Stoke-on-Trent North and Stoke-on-Trent South being Stoke-on-Trent Burslem and Stoke-on-Trent Hanley respectively. It gave me a good deal of pleasure to read especially his second consultation submission, as I agree with so much of it and see many of my own views, attitudes and personality reflected there, even though I do not know him. I found reading his views on political parties very refreshing. I share Stephen's concern about the prominence given to political party representations but am glad that the Assistant Commissioners did in fact treat submissions from individuals seriously. I think Stephen's alternative names make sense in terms of Burslem and Hanley being major towns in the city and each nearest within their constituency to the boundary between the two proposed constituencies of the city. I would be equally happy with these names as I would with the use of North and South, the only drawback being possible dissatisfaction from residents of the other historic 4 towns. I am very happy that the revised proposals have at least selected North and South over North and Central as the latter aren't a very logical pair. I am also pleased that the revised proposals include the West Staffordshire named constituency which Stephen and myself proposed. The West Staffordshire constituency is not a particularly simple arrangement but within the bigger picture is the best practical option. It is of some regret that Madeley residents are not brought into Newcastle-under-Lyme, but many of their objections to the initial proposals were a lack of affinity with the North of Stoke-on-Trent. In the revised proposals this link is dissolved and being part of a wider constituency including just a few wards from the South of Stoke-on-Trent may be rather more acceptable to Madeley?

In conclusion I am very pleased that the revised proposals have adopted the revised constituencies proposed by myself and Stephen Whittaker for the 'North Staffordshire' area. They address the key issues, to unite every one of the 6 towns of Stoke-on-Trent in two constituencies, unite the urban core of Newcastle-under-Lyme, unite Staffordshire Moorlands and produce an acceptably workable arrangement named the West Staffordshire constituency.

Comments on the review and consultation process

There are positive aspects of the process as well as scope for improvement. I hope the BCE can consider the following comments in shaping future reviews.

Provision of the review guidance, spreadsheets of numerical data and maps on the website was very good, with the exception that perhaps more maps covering smaller areas could have been made available to contributors on which to draw our suggested boundaries.

The review process started with initial proposals from the BCE without prior consultation. It would be better if we could be invited for our initial suggestions.

I liked the opportunity to contribute at a public meeting where questions could be asked of me interactively to aid the Assistant Commissioners' understanding, as well as being able to provide a written submission. But improvements could be made for the public presentations, especially bearing in mind that boundaries depend on maps as well as numbers and are therefore very visual. So contributors could perhaps be forewarned that a verbal description to accompany diagrams would help the transcript and perhaps diagrams and maps provided by contributors could be incorporated into the body of the transcript. I found making my presentation at Stafford a little tricky because of having to speak into a microphone in front of me whilst pointing to my powerpoint presentation on the screen behind me, the screen position needs to be set up in the forward direction. Venues could be considered which are well set up for presentations and have ample and preferably free parking close by.

Whilst I approve of the publication of all submissions I think there is more that could be done to aid viewing of these. The constituency grouping of responses was brought in to help viewing of responses from certain areas but I think this is still too coarse and would be better subdivided into wards. A more sophisticated search facility would be helpful. It would also be useful to have submissions categorised into firstly comments and secondly alternative proposals that meet the required criteria, with the alternative proposals categorised into those for single constituencies and those for larger regions. It was not particularly easy for those of us providing alternative proposals to connect with others doing this, so this process could be aided by grouping submissions appropriately. I'm personally not party political but do understand that political parties will produce proposals and it is good to be able to see the views of our elected representatives. However I don't think the party submissions should be given a priority place on the website and would like independent proposals to be given equitable prominence.

It could be useful for the BCE to provide a summary of responses received, highlighting key issues, at the same time as publishing the comments. There are advantages and disadvantages in that. The advantage, particularly under the conditions of the current review, would be the ease of us discovering the concerns of others for those of us who as individuals can not find or read all the relevant comments. If there are improvements made to the presentation of comments as described above, this would be less necessary. The disadvantage would be that it could be seen as the BCE either deliberately or inadvertently trying to bias further input. Some balance would need to be struck.

The next review

At present it seems that the BCE proposals when laid before parliament look likely to be rejected, but we cannot be completely certain of that.

Whether they are rejected or accepted, it would seem sensible for the current review conclusions to be used as a starting consideration for the 2018 review. As well as changes in electorate numbers caused by population changes and movements, that the reviews are set to address, there is the change in legislation on voter registration that may produce further variations in electorate numbers regardless of population. So the current review results may possibly turn out to be markedly different from what is required at the next review. The requirement for constituencies to be within 5% of the electoral quota is a little tight, but is in the legislation so we are stuck with it. For the next review however, there will be a little more flexibility in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, because instead of using local government boundaries as they existed on 6 May 2010, the current ward boundaries will be used and most wards are smaller than they were.

I await with interest the final proposals, in the hope that no further changes are required in the 'North Staffordshire' area at least.

Breeding Birds, Garden Birds and Wetland Birds

On Friday 24th March 2012 I attended the Stone group of Staffordshire Wildlife Trust to hear a very interesting talk by Gerald Gittens of the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO).  I found out about this talk via twitter, as I follow @bitofstone.  The event attracted an audience of about 40.

Gerald told us about the work of the BTO which focuses on scientific surveys and complements the work of other organisations such as the RSPB and the JNCC.  Such work, carried out largely by volunteers, is of interest not only to the bird watching public but also to wildlife and conservation groups and government.  Gerald described three core types of survey the BTO carries out; the breeding bird survey, the garden bird watch and the wetland bird survey.

The breeding bird survey involves many randomly defined 1km by 1km squares each allocated to a volunteer.  The volunteer will perform bird counts along each 200m of a walk along two defined 1km stretches within their square.  These counts are carried out in the early morning during the spring.  The numbers of different species seen or heard within certain distances from the route or flying overhead are recorded.

The garden bird watch is carried out by other volunteers who, every week all year round, note the maximum number of each species observed in their gardens.

The wetland bird survey involves volunteers counting species at many specific locations clustered around the coast, estuaries and other wetland areas.

All the data are statistically analysed and reports are produced of the results.  Gerald showed us examples of the tables and graphs produced, which as a scientist kept me very happy.  Plus maps, I’m very fond of maps too.

The graphs showed how garden birds are observed in larger numbers during the winter months and smaller numbers during the summer, so graphs over many years showed spikes but an overall trend on top of that.  Some examples given included buzzards, the numbers of which have risen tremendously over the last 15 years, cuckoos which have markedly decreased, sparrows which are also on the decline and goldfinches which are on the rise.  A drop in goldcrest numbers was also reported.  I can only assume numbers started very high as I encounter large numbers of them in many locations when I’m out walking, difficult to see but distinctive by their high pitched call.  As well as trends, the prevalence of various bird species was also shown.  For example in garden bird watching, blackbirds are seen in almost all gardens but some species such as yellowhammers are very rare.  This matches my experience, I have never seen a yellowhammer in my garden.  I know where to find them though in the countryside to the West of Stone and Trentham, along with very many other species as well.

The BTO are able to accurately report on bird numbers and locations because of having a large number of well distributed areas from which to extrapolate.  Comparisons can also be made with similar surveys in other parts of the world.  For example in other parts of Europe the cuckoo is not decreasing, in some areas it is increasing.  It seems that it is tending not to stop off in Britain on its migratory route.  Finding reasons for the observed trends is rather more difficult than measuring them and subject to a bit more guesswork.  The increase in buzzards for example could be attributed to less use of pesticides allowing greater availability of their food chain, but a decrease in kestrels is not easy to explain.  Garden bird numbers can be affected by disease actually spread due to visits to bird tables.  This serves as a reminder to us all to keep our bird feeders clean to avoid an adverse effect on the very wildlife we are trying to encourage and enjoy watching.

Gerald told us that the wetland bird surveys were most popular amongst volunteers and the breeding bird surveys were the hardest to find volunteers for.  That surprised me a little.  Garden birds I think have a greater cuteness factor than water birds.  But perhaps I think this way because of living in Staffordshire.  I expect if I lived on the coast I would be much more interested in the water birds around me.  The survey that sounded to me the most interesting to do is the breeding bird survey, because it allows you to get to know an area near you very well.  Also, it combines looking for birds with a walk, albeit a very short one.

I would like to thank all concerned for putting on a very good event.

I am no expert on birds, I’m just an ordinary person with a good deal of interest in most things around me.  I have the usual garden birds; blackbirds, great tits, blue tits, robins, sparrows, a woodpigeon or two, the odd magpie and recently the occasional chaffinch.  But my interest has been enhanced since I got a seed feeder and more recently a niger seed feeder, pretty much by ‘accident’ as I dislike shopping and happened across them rather than set out to buy them.  I hoped the niger feeder, purchased at the Wolseley centre, might encourage goldfinches which are pretty in colours and song, but I was prepared for maybe having to wait many months to see them.  As it was redpolls appeared within a week, I have never seen these so close up before.  The male doesn’t visit as often as the two females, which appear daily.  I thought it doesn’t matter if I never get goldfinches because the redpolls are so nice anyway.  But then two goldfinches appeared on Friday morning.  One flapped around nervously and didn’t stay very long but the other stayed a good while.  I have not seen them since but they know where my feeder is now so I think they will return again sometime.  That’s new redpolls and goldfinches into my garden within two weeks of buying the niger feeder.  I’m very pleased.

Relevant on twitter: @Nicky_Davis_ @StaffsWildlife @_BTO @Natures_Voice @bitofstone

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 – 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.