|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 4, 2016 10:30:22 GMT
Some news on the Tories proposals for Birmingham, they want Stockland Green ward to go from Erdington into Perry Barr, Aston ward back into Ladywood and Tyburn ward back into Erdington As opposed to Labour MPs who were all happy with the changes, to create a number of bizarre seats that are statistical functions rather than representatives of the communities within Birmingham. Only because they are forced to work within the idiotic rules which the government you supported imposed. |
|
|
|
Post by connorw on Nov 4, 2016 10:49:32 GMT
Some news on the Tories proposals for Birmingham, they want Stockland Green ward to go from Erdington into Perry Barr, Aston ward back into Ladywood and Tyburn ward back into Erdington As opposed to Labour MPs who were all happy with the changes, to create a number of bizarre seats that are statistical functions rather than representatives of the communities within Birmingham. Not all Labour MPs. Stockland Green strong links to Erdington, in local boundary changes Tories wanted to split Stockland Green in half (Straight though main shopping area, Slade Road). |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 4, 2016 11:09:40 GMT
As opposed to Labour MPs who were all happy with the changes, to create a number of bizarre seats that are statistical functions rather than representatives of the communities within Birmingham. Not all Labour MPs. Stockland Green strong links to Erdington, in local boundary changes Tories wanted to split Stockland Green in half (Straight though main shopping area, Slade Road). Each of the five labour MPs supported the commissions proposals. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 4, 2016 11:12:01 GMT
As opposed to Labour MPs who were all happy with the changes, to create a number of bizarre seats that are statistical functions rather than representatives of the communities within Birmingham. Only because they are forced to work within the idiotic rules which the government you supported imposed. Even with a 10% quota, Birmingham is challenging. However, several of the seats proposed are laughable and there are alternatives. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 4, 2016 11:19:21 GMT
As opposed to Labour MPs who were all happy with the changes, to create a number of bizarre seats that are statistical functions rather than representatives of the communities within Birmingham. Only because they are forced to work within the idiotic rules which the government you supported imposed. They played that card, despite it being BS, and I'm surprised you're playing it too. The government has imposed no rule that says that the seats in Birmingham must be bacon strips. I took it from the shameless display in the chamber yesterday that the Labour Party believes that the seats in the initial proposals will do it nicely as far as partisan advantage is concerned, and therefore it came up with this awful social-engineering spiel that the MPs and supporters came out with in order to make some sort of justification. The Northfield MP, and even worse the bardic woman who came after him, gave a jaw-dropping performance, claiming that the current Northfield seat is TOO WHITE and that the Commission has produced a glorious gerrymander in the name of social cohesion. At that point I decided to go home before I was physically sick. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 4, 2016 11:21:45 GMT
Goodness, people using the rules of the Boundary review to get a partisan advantage. Absolutely never heard of that people might seek a favourable arrangement of boundaries for their own political party. Pass me a bucket immediately.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 4, 2016 12:04:45 GMT
At least the Tories do it by the hoary old method of pretending e.g. that the A4040 is wider than the Amazon, not by giving all their hostages to fortune.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 4, 2016 12:10:51 GMT
Goodness, people using the rules of the Boundary review to get a partisan advantage. Absolutely never heard of that people might seek a favourable arrangement of boundaries for their own political party. Pass me a bucket immediately. Because the political parties do this, and because the Boundary Commission pays them exaggerated respect (with their QCs), is why it is so important for us ordinary citizens to get involved and call them out. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 4, 2016 12:17:00 GMT
It really was pathetic from both sides yesterday. Unless they think the ACs are morons, I'm not convinced that insulting their intelligence is the best way of getting what you want. For another thing, the ACs get a picture of MPs as people who are not involved in the process as representatives of their constituents but as representatives of their parties who enjoy playing the game of pretending that they are representatives of their constituents. Not a good look, and clearly one that Jess Phillips was uncomfortable with.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 4, 2016 13:58:35 GMT
As fun as it is watching this display of ridiculous preachiness, some perspective is needed.
Birmingham will be a mess under any solution that doesn't split wards (and most ward-splitting options at best minimise rather than eliminate the messiness.) You need to produce an awful lot of evidence to convince the BCE that ward-splitting is necessary, and still more evidence to produce evidence that any particular ward split is desirable. A small amount of counter-evidence is likely to cancel out even a large quantity of positive evidence. There are many many possible ward splits, so it'd be absurdly difficult to build consensus on which ones should be pursued even if there weren't different underlying social and political agendas at play. So it's perfectly reasonable to decide not to propose a ward-splitting plan, because you think it'll be ignored and to instead seek only limited changes or just support the plan as the least worst available option.
And it's perfectly reasonable for parties to use the information available to them to further their interests. All MPs will have interests in issues rather more important than precisely how pretty their constituency boundaries are. They are going to prioritise continuing to be able to pursue those interests in preference to getting nicer boundaries that make their election more difficult. If you think that makes them venal and corrupt, fair enough. I personally think if you hold that opinion you are taking self-important impracticality to absurd levels. Reasonable minds can differ on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorw on Nov 4, 2016 14:01:45 GMT
At least the Tories do it by the hoary old method of pretending e.g. that the A4040 is wider than the Amazon, not by giving all their hostages to fortune. You mean their better at it? |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 4, 2016 17:30:23 GMT
So, Birmingham Hearing Report 3rd Nov Chair: AC Margaret Gilmore (ex-BBC) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_GilmoreStandard intro by Sam Hartley 1. Greens (Chris) "Proposals not motivated by political gain" Suggested using the new wards in Birmingham - but no plan presented afaiui No need to disrupt Solihull Salop-Wyre Forest cross-border seat instead of Salop-Herefs Dordon in Tamworth seat (A bad start - hard to take the proposals in without maps on screen or a paper copy. He only gave a paper copy to the other parties, a practice which I've complained about before - I thought the Greens might behave a bit better) 2. Labour (Greg Cook) "A satisfactory arrangement is possible without splitting wards" < Can't we have a good arrangement? Support 39 seats in region "We will consider counter-proposals" < He seems to think he is the BCE Reserves position on Brum RP quizzed him on how many cross-county-border seats in Lab proposals - 7 (Again, no maps or paperwork, so it was hard to know what, if anything, Labour were proposing. There seemed to be mention of Northfield crossing into Worcestershire, but if so this was contradicted by R Burden's submission. From previous experience I have little or no respect for GC - the party must see something in him but I don't know what it is - and there was nothing to change my mind. 3. Lib Dems (David Murray) Change 39 seats "to better follow rule 5" Split wards in Birmingham instead of "stealing a seat from the Black Country" Cross-border Tamworth seat Hallelujah! Some maps on screen, albeit hand-drawn Per question from RP, 4 seats crossing WM county border, Bedworth split between 3 seats, Aldridge split too (I didn't make many notes on the substance - I think I was going to ask for a copy but forgot.) 4. Tories (Roger Pratt) Gave me a copy of the proposals - he does have manners even if he is a wily operator. Coventry/Warwick same as Greens - I think everyone counter-proposed the Kenilworth option. Worcester with a tail south along the M5 Quite nice before-and-after maps but not up on the screen long enough to take in (Nice to meet robert1) 5. UKIP Zilch End of part 1. Sean Ley from the BBC was there and he interviewed me and a few other people, including some of the MPs, for a (radio) documentary he's making about the process. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 4, 2016 18:47:12 GMT
Birmingham hearing report part 2
After the party submissions, which took the first 90 minutes, there were a couple of real people, and me, and I was feeling quite positive about the day. But then the torrent of politicians began, mostly carefully co-ordinated, so that it was the Tories till teatime and then Labour.
Mrs Fitch was unhappy that Hollywood will be in the Redditch seat, breaking the "social construct" in the Bromsgrove borough, and was convinced that if only all the immigrants in Redditch were added to the electoral roll it would have enough voters for an MP of its own.
A man from Wylde Green complained that although he didn't live in Sutton he did have a Sutton postcode so his street should be in the Sutton seat.
Andrew Mitchell MP paid a flying visit to ask the AC to get "Royal" added in front of "Sutton Coldfield". Since I'm a pleb, I disagree.
Now came a succession of Tories all with the same message: Put Tyburn in Erdington, Stockland Green (SG) in Perry Barr and Aston in Ladywood. Now this suggestion has some merit, especially as a quick fix for the Ladywood Thing, but the more it went on, this succession of parrots, it became more and more obvious that there must be an ulterior motive for wanting this change. I'm no expert but I'm guessing that Tyburn is a more Tory ward than SG?
Actually, I call them parrots, but some effort was made at pretense - sometimes it wasn't obvious till the speaker was halfway through their speech that they were just saying the same thing as the person before. There was a sad example where an old chap got a bit confused and RP and another Tory had to prompt him.
Cllr Alden led off. He claimed that SG is "clearly separated from Erdington by the A4040." <But apparently it isn't clearly separated from Perry Barr by the M6...
I quizzed him as to whether he'd keep SG in Erdington if it was possible to do so, but he said no. <!
Cllr Sambrook said he was pleased to have Pheasey and Oscott together, launching into a list of half-truths about Pheasey people shopping on Hawthorn Road and Pheasey kids going to Great Barr School (to which I wanted to shout "but not if they can help it") etc. (He didn't mention Perry Beeches School though, because that's not in the ward.) The Commission loves being given these kind of details, true or otherwise, because they like to quote them when justifying decisions. (Nice to meet Gary finally and have a chat.)
Cllr Jenkins, who represents Four Oaks, added his support to the Tories' Erdington proposals. "Pheasey has a Birmingham postcode." <Guess what, so has my arse.
Chris Richards (Aldridge-Brownhills) spoke in favour of adding Bloxwich to the seat and removing Pheasey. "Pheasey and Kingstanding have housing stock of the same vintage." Blah.
Mike Wood MP spoke in support of the Tory plan to split Brierley Hill ward along the railway, with one half going in a West Dudley seat going up to Sedgley. "It's better to split a small number of wards than to break up natural communities, otherwise the process is reduced to a mathematical formula."
(It does stick in the craw a bit to think that they're only proposing a split ward for partisan purposes.) He said that there was cross-party agreement, but I think the agreement is really about keeping the Gornal wards together rather than the details of the Tory plan.
Cllr Harley (Dudley) spoke in support of his party's Dudley proposals, and against the commission's plan to split Halesowen.
Labour
Jess Phillips MP started off by saying "What we have in Birmingham we will have to make the best of" (and when I quizzed her about this she seemed a little perturbed and accused me of putting words in her mouth...) She said she was conducting a survey in Sheldon about its being in a Solihull seat with Chelmsley Wood and so far 60% were okay with, though many did not understand the process. Otherwise, the Yardley proposals are "not entirely controversial".
Sandra Jenkinson OBE (Labour) from Billesley made perhaps the best speech of the day, even if I disagreed with quite a bit of it. (Excerpts) "The process is flawed, based on a lack of understanding of the role of MPs. It should be working to bring Mps closer to voters, rather than playing a numbers game. Changes to representation push people further away from participation. It becomes a case of 'catch yourr MP as they go past'. Awareness takes time." Somewhere amongst it all was support for Labour's position.
Steve McCabe MP pointed out (to gasps from the gallery) that getting from Halesowen to Selly Oak "requires at least two bus journeys", but I'm not sure what Labour's counterproposal is, if there is one. He went on a bit about "balanced constituencies, in terms of socio-economic indicators", and quoted the lovely Ted Cantle that "we should guard against creating segregated communities", which I guess was a set-up for what Richard Burden said later. Then there was stuff about bus routes and parks and whatnot to justify adding Kings Norton and Sparkhill to Brandwood. He wasn't very impressed when I accused him of being a mite disingenuous.
Cllr Bateman (Wton) spoke in favour of BCE proposals (as did Tory MP Emma Reynolds), opining that Wednesfield and Willenhall "go together like strawberries and cream" and that "the opportunity to get their name checked in parliament is worth a lot of money."
Richard Burden MP started by lying that the boundary commission "has done its best" in Birmingham. (Later he lied again, claiming that the strange way the proposals had turned out was "not the commission's doing, but arithmetic.")
He went on that intially he'd been disappointed "but then I started to think about the proposals" and how they would mix ethnic groups. He noted that the percentages of ethnic voters are: Northfield 14%, Hall Green 60% (I think - it was something like that). He said he is "not convinced that reinforcing those divisions in the configuration of seats is a good thing" so the commission's proposals have merit after all. And that it'd be wrong to amend the Northfield proposal because it would be "not right to leave Northfield monocultural." (!!)
He was supported by the Labour woman who followed him (I didn't get her name) who talked about Northfield being a "disproportionately white constituency" and that the proposed seat up to Moseley would form a "coherent extended neighbourhood".
Anyway, enough, it was 6 pm so I got the bus home for tea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 4, 2016 19:12:46 GMT
Cllr Bateman (Wton) spoke in favour of BCE proposals (as did Tory MP Emma Reynolds) Labour, not Tory |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 4, 2016 19:41:57 GMT
So, Birmingham Hearing Report 3rd Nov Chair: AC Margaret Gilmore (ex-BBC) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_GilmoreStandard intro by Sam Hartley 1. Greens (Chris) "Proposals not motivated by political gain" Suggested using the new wards in Birmingham - but no plan presented afaiui No need to disrupt Solihull Salop-Wyre Forest cross-border seat instead of Salop-Herefs Dordon in Tamworth seat (A bad start - hard to take the proposals in without maps on screen or a paper copy. He only gave a paper copy to the other parties, a practice which I've complained about before - I thought the Greens might behave a bit better) This is the first time we've done this, so definitely a learning experience. Next time, I assume we'll try for maps on a screen (and probably be prepared enough to make them - best I have at the moment is screengrabs from boundary assistant). There was a Birmingham plan submitted to us by Birmingham Green Party, but they didn't get back to us when we were asking for more details to justify their specific ward splits. I assume their breakdown was included in the paper copy, but there was an issue with the files on our shared drive, so maybe not. Our Herefordshire proposals were motivated partly by a desire to have two mostly-Herefordshire seats, and only cross the Herefordshire border once (and it's simpler and easier to take some Malvern Hills wards than to take some Shropshire ones). And also a desire not to have the North Herefordshire constituency be too massive. The Herefordshire proposals were the most detailed and worked through of the submissions we got from local parties. If anyone wants more details on the Green proposals, I can post them here in more detail. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 4, 2016 20:04:56 GMT
If anyone wants more details on the Green proposals, I can post them here in more detail. Yes please. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 4, 2016 20:07:09 GMT
Birmingham hearing report part 2 After the party submissions, which took the first 90 minutes, there were a couple of real people, and me, and I was feeling quite positive about the day. But then the torrent of politicians began, mostly carefully co-ordinated, so that it was the Tories till teatime and then Labour. Mrs Fitch was unhappy that Hollywood will be in the Redditch seat, breaking the "social construct" in the Bromsgrove borough, and was convinced that if only all the immigrants in Redditch were added to the electoral roll it would have enough voters for an MP of its own. A man from Wylde Green complained that although he didn't live in Sutton he did have a Sutton postcode so his street should be in the Sutton seat. Andrew Mitchell MP paid a flying visit to ask the AC to get "Royal" added in front of "Sutton Coldfield". Since I'm a pleb, I disagree. Now came a succession of Tories all with the same message: Put Tyburn in Erdington, Stockland Green (SG) in Perry Barr and Aston in Ladywood. Now this suggestion has some merit, especially as a quick fix for the Ladywood Thing, but the more it went on, this succession of parrots, it became more and more obvious that there must be an ulterior motive for wanting this change. I'm no expert but I'm guessing that Tyburn is a more Tory ward than SG? Actually, I call them parrots, but some effort was made at pretense - sometimes it wasn't obvious till the speaker was halfway through their speech that they were just saying the same thing as the person before. There was a sad example where an old chap got a bit confused and RP and another Tory had to prompt him. Cllr Alden led off. He claimed that SG is "clearly separated from Erdington by the A4040." <But apparently it isn't clearly separated from Perry Barr by the M6... I quizzed him as to whether he'd keep SG in Erdington if it was possible to do so, but he said no. <! Cllr Sambrook said he was pleased to have Pheasey and Oscott together, launching into a list of half-truths about Pheasey people shopping on Hawthorn Road and Pheasey kids going to Great Barr School (to which I wanted to shout "but not if they can help it") etc. (He didn't mention Perry Beeches School though, because that's not in the ward.) The Commission loves being given these kind of details, true or otherwise, because they like to quote them when justifying decisions. (Nice to meet Gary finally and have a chat.) Cllr Jenkins, who represents Four Oaks, added his support to the Tories' Erdington proposals. "Pheasey has a Birmingham postcode." <Guess what, so has my arse. Chris Richards (Aldridge-Brownhills) spoke in favour of adding Bloxwich to the seat and removing Pheasey. "Pheasey and Kingstanding have housing stock of the same vintage." Blah. Mike Wood MP spoke in support of the Tory plan to split Brierley Hill ward along the railway, with one half going in a West Dudley seat going up to Sedgley. "It's better to split a small number of wards than to break up natural communities, otherwise the process is reduced to a mathematical formula." (It does stick in the craw a bit to think that they're only proposing a split ward for partisan purposes.) He said that there was cross-party agreement, but I think the agreement is really about keeping the Gornal wards together rather than the details of the Tory plan. Cllr Harley (Dudley) spoke in support of his party's Dudley proposals, and against the commission's plan to split Halesowen. Labour Jess Phillips MP started off by saying "What we have in Birmingham we will have to make the best of" (and when I quizzed her about this she seemed a little perturbed and accused me of putting words in her mouth...) She said she was conducting a survey in Sheldon about its being in a Solihull seat with Chelmsley Wood and so far 60% were okay with, though many did not understand the process. Otherwise, the Yardley proposals are "not entirely controversial". Sandra Jenkinson OBE (Labour) from Billesley made perhaps the best speech of the day, even if I disagreed with quite a bit of it. (Excerpts) "The process is flawed, based on a lack of understanding of the role of MPs. It should be working to bring Mps closer to voters, rather than playing a numbers game. Changes to representation push people further away from participation. It becomes a case of 'catch yourr MP as they go past'. Awareness takes time." Somewhere amongst it all was support for Labour's position. Steve McCabe MP pointed out (to gasps from the gallery) that getting from Halesowen to Selly Oak "requires at least two bus journeys", but I'm not sure what Labour's counterproposal is, if there is one. He went on a bit about "balanced constituencies, in terms of socio-economic indicators", and quoted the lovely Ted Cantle that "we should guard against creating segregated communities", which I guess was a set-up for what Richard Burden said later. Then there was stuff about bus routes and parks and whatnot to justify adding Kings Norton and Sparkhill to Brandwood. He wasn't very impressed when I accused him of being a mite disingenuous. Cllr Bateman (Wton) spoke in favour of BCE proposals (as did Tory MP Emma Reynolds), opining that Wednesfield and Willenhall "go together like strawberries and cream" and that "the opportunity to get their name checked in parliament is worth a lot of money." Richard Burden MP started by lying that the boundary commission "has done its best" in Birmingham. (Later he lied again, claiming that the strange way the proposals had turned out was "not the commission's doing, but arithmetic.") He went on that intially he'd been disappointed "but then I started to think about the proposals" and how they would mix ethnic groups. He noted that the percentages of ethnic voters are: Northfield 14%, Hall Green 60% (I think - it was something like that). He said he is "not convinced that reinforcing those divisions in the configuration of seats is a good thing" so the commission's proposals have merit after all. And that it'd be wrong to amend the Northfield proposal because it would be "not right to leave Northfield monocultural." (!!) He was supported by the Labour woman who followed him (I didn't get her name) who talked about Northfield being a "disproportionately white constituency" and that the proposed seat up to Moseley would form a "coherent extended neighbourhood". Anyway, enough, it was 6 pm so I got the bus home for tea. I sympathise, having read transcripts of previous hearings. You wouldn't get me wasting my time attending. You can sympathise with the Boundary Commission, given the mountain of crap they have to deal with. Better to make a well-thought out submission in writing. At least last time they did me the courtesy of addressing my proposals, while rejecting them. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 4, 2016 20:38:12 GMT
As fun as it is watching this display of ridiculous preachiness, some perspective is needed. Birmingham will be a mess under any solution that doesn't split wards (and most ward-splitting options at best minimise rather than eliminate the messiness.) You need to produce an awful lot of evidence to convince the BCE that ward-splitting is necessary, and still more evidence to produce evidence that any particular ward split is desirable. A small amount of counter-evidence is likely to cancel out even a large quantity of positive evidence. There are many many possible ward splits, so it'd be absurdly difficult to build consensus on which ones should be pursued even if there weren't different underlying social and political agendas at play. So it's perfectly reasonable to decide not to propose a ward-splitting plan, because you think it'll be ignored and to instead seek only limited changes or just support the plan as the least worst available option. Your main point is well taken. Yes, there are many possible ward splits, which could make the process unworkable, I agree. But (a) in reality we're not talking about the whole country, but only a small subsection of it. That subsection doesn't even include all of London and all of the MBCs and other large-ward areas, but only those large-ward areas where the arithmetic doesn't work. Allowing splits even in those areas will create some more work but at least the job would get done properly. (b) The problem would be offset if the Commission's initial proposals actually included ward splits, as in Scotland. Most people will tend to tinker with the initial proposals rather than create whole new plans. But I still disagree whole-heartedly that one needs to produce "an awful lot of evidence" to persuade the BCE to split wards. There is certainly no need in theory, since the BCE's policy is a matter of convenience, not law. And in practice, it is really not difficult to make a case for ward-splitting in those few areas where the alternative is bad to any neutral observer. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 4, 2016 20:53:25 GMT
Green Party Submission (part 1)Well, at least one of you demanded it, so here's the Green submission part one. I basically did the work of working out how to reconcile the various submissions the regional party got from the local parties. Much of it was a rush job (I only had a few days to do it, and they co-incided with buying my first house - I've been trying to buy a house since January, and exchange and completion just happen to co-incide with this. What are the odds?). Let's go in what I think is the most logical order. Note that it's entirely possible that some details had been cut out of the actual presentation for timing purposes. This is basically the details of what I wrote up for Chris Williams to present. He may well have skipped some of the justifications, though they would have been in the paper version. Staffordshire
We had several proposals from south Staffs, but nothing from the north of the county. The proposals are as follows: Tamworth gains Dorden ward from North Warwickshire, rather than gaining Whittington & Streethay from Lichfield. There was substantial justification for this: The village primary school has always been within the catchment of a Lichfield School, King Edwards VI. Consequently, generations of villagers have their friendship groups - in Lichfield, have socialised in Lichfield and joined sports teams and other social activities in Lichfield.
- Whittington has always received the Lichfield Mercury newspaper, rather than the Tamworth Herald, consequently they have an intimate knowledge of Lichfield life. Village events are reported and advertised in the Lichfield Mercury.
- Whittington Barracks was built in the late 19th century to house soldiers from 1st Battalion: the 38th (1st Staffordshire) Regiment of Foot, raised in Lichfield in 1705 as Colonel Luke Lillingstone's Regiment.
- Whittington has link to Lichfield going back centuries; the church services were originally held by monks who walked over from the Friary at Lichfield, the village butcher would walk cattle ‘on the hoof’ from Lichfield Smithfield market to Whittington up until the mid-20th century, villagers have always been involved in Lichfield customs such as the ‘Greenhill Bower’ festival or the Dr Johnson’s birthday celebrations.
- Whittington has always been served by Lichfield District Council rather than Tamworth Borough.
We noted that both Dorden and Polesworth have strong links with Tamworth, but went for Dorden as it has less impact on our Warwickshire proposals.
Lichfield therefore doesn't need to take Haywood and Hixon from Stafford, so both can remain identical to the current constituency. South Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, and Burton can also remain unchanged.
Staffordshire Moorlands is identical to the commission's proposal (expanding to take in the whole of the district council area).
We proposed a variation of the Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone approach to the Potteries, keeping modified Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North, and Newcastle-under-Lyme seats. This last bit was very much done in a rush, by me, who doesn't know the area at all, and is probably worse than the similar proposals from elsewhere on this thread.
Coventry, Solihull, and Warwickshire
With the exception of Dorden, this is basically what me and Pete Whitehead worked out for Cov & Warks on the first couple of pages of this thread, plus the minimum possible change in Solihull. Turns out I was the only person in the whole of this area who submitted anything, so of course I used the plan I'd made earlier. North Warwickshire and Nuneaton - expanded as per the commission's plan, except for the loss of Dorden to Tamworth (which - to my surprise - doesn't require any additional changes to North Warwickshire to keep it in quota). Rugby and Southam- different boundaries to the commission's proposal, taking in more of the north of South Warwickshire. Coventry East - Coventry North East plus Binley & Willenhall minus Foleshill Coventry North West - current seat of that name plus Foleshill and St Michael's, minus Woodlands. Coventry South and Kenilworth - Coventry South plus Woodlands, minus Binley & Willenhall, minus St Michaels, plus the three Kenilworth wards. Warwick and Leamington and Stratford-upon-Avon each add some of the Kenilworth and Southam wards. Solihull and Meriden swap Elmdon and Blythe. Though apparently we've renamed Meriden to Chelmsley Wood and Meriden. Arguments in favour were the obvious ones about keeping Warwick and Leamington together (they are one urban area, etc.), pointing out some of the community links broken in Coventry (e.g the commission's plan splits Coundon and Radford). 
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 4, 2016 20:56:09 GMT
Green Party Submission (part 1)Well, at least one of you demanded it, so here's the Green submission part one. I basically did the work of working out how to reconcile the various submissions the regional party got from the local parties. Much of it was a rush job (I only had a few days to do it, and they co-incided with buying my first house - I've been trying to buy a house since January, and exchange and completion just happen to co-incide with this. What are the odds?). Let's go in what I think is the most logical order. Note that it's entirely possible that some details had been cut out of the actual presentation for timing purposes. This is basically the details of what I wrote up for Chris Williams to present. He may well have skipped some of the justifications, though they would have been in the paper version. Staffordshire
We had several proposals from south Staffs, but nothing from the north of the county. The proposals are as follows: Tamworth gains Dorden ward from North Warwickshire, rather than gaining Whittington & Streethay from Lichfield. There was substantial justification for this: The village primary school has always been within the catchment of a Lichfield School, King Edwards VI. Consequently, generations of villagers have their friendship groups - in Lichfield, have socialised in Lichfield and joined sports teams and other social activities in Lichfield.
- Whittington has always received the Lichfield Mercury newspaper, rather than the Tamworth Herald, consequently they have an intimate knowledge of Lichfield life. Village events are reported and advertised in the Lichfield Mercury.
- Whittington Barracks was built in the late 19th century to house soldiers from 1st Battalion: the 38th (1st Staffordshire) Regiment of Foot, raised in Lichfield in 1705 as Colonel Luke Lillingstone's Regiment.
- Whittington has link to Lichfield going back centuries; the church services were originally held by monks who walked over from the Friary at Lichfield, the village butcher would walk cattle ‘on the hoof’ from Lichfield Smithfield market to Whittington up until the mid-20th century, villagers have always been involved in Lichfield customs such as the ‘Greenhill Bower’ festival or the Dr Johnson’s birthday celebrations.
- Whittington has always been served by Lichfield District Council rather than Tamworth Borough.
We noted that both Dorden and Polesworth have strong links with Tamworth, but went for Dorden as it has less impact on our Warwickshire proposals.
Lichfield therefore doesn't need to take Haywood and Hixon from Stafford, so both can remain identical to the current constituency. South Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, and Burton can also remain unchanged.
Staffordshire Moorlands is identical to the commission's proposal (expanding to take in the whole of the district council area).
We proposed a variation of the Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone approach to the Potteries, keeping modified Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North, and Newcastle-under-Lyme seats. This last bit was very much done in a rush, by me, who doesn't know the area at all, and is probably worse than the similar proposals from elsewhere on this thread.
Coventry, Solihull, and Warwickshire
With the exception of Dorden, this is basically what me and Pete Whitehead worked out for Cov & Warks on the first couple of pages of this thread, plus the minimum possible change in Solihull. Turns out I was the only person in the whole of this area who submitted anything, so of course I used the plan I'd made earlier. North Warwickshire and Nuneaton - expanded as per the commission's plan, except for the loss of Dorden to Tamworth (which - to my surprise - doesn't require any additional changes to North Warwickshire to keep it in quota). Rugby and Southam- different boundaries to the commission's proposal, taking in more of the north of South Warwickshire. Coventry East - Coventry North East plus Binley & Willenhall minus Foleshill Coventry North West - current seat of that name plus Foleshill and St Michael's, minus Woodlands. Coventry South and Kenilworth - Coventry South plus Woodlands, minus Binley & Willenhall, minus St Michaels, plus the three Kenilworth wards. Warwick and Leamington and Stratford-upon-Avon each add some of the Kenilworth and Southam wards. Solihull and Meriden swap Elmdon and Blythe. Though apparently we've renamed Meriden to Chelmsley Wood and Meriden. Arguments in favour were the obvious ones about keeping Warwick and Leamington together (they are one urban area, etc.), pointing out some of the community links broken in Coventry (e.g the commission's plan splits Coundon and Radford). Screenshots from boundary assistant to follow when photobucket stops telling me it's down for maintenance. Putting Dorden into Tamworth is a very good idea in my opinion. Hadn't thought of it before. |
|
