|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 4, 2016 20:58:32 GMT
Putting Dorden into Tamworth is a very good idea in my opinion. Hadn't thought of it before. Make sure you suggest it to the commission, then. The more they hear the argument from apparently independent sources, the more likely they are to accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by connorw on Nov 4, 2016 21:40:04 GMT
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.) About half of Labour's majority from the 2015 General Election result in Erdington constituency came from SG. Cllr Alden needs to have a look at a map of the Stockland Green Ward, A4040 runs straight though it. Surely he could of thought of a better reason than that? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 4, 2016 21:49:33 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. You may disagree, but I wasn't giving my position, I was giving what I perceive the BCE's position to be. Look at where they countenanced ward splitting in the zombie review - only in a very few cases where it was a simple fix that made multiple seats easier, and mostly in large rural wards. They've said they're more open to it this time, but the comparative - they're a long way from enthusiastic. Mark my words, the only cases where wards get split are where multiple groups suggest the same split, where it fixes a lot of problems at once and where the evidence submitted refers to things like school catchments in the way that gets your back up. This is because it will create more work and the BCE are not going to proactively seek out more work. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this problem. We'd have smaller wards and more flexibility on constituency sizes, and if that still didn't fix it we could split wards. But I don't think this is a particularly ideal world. I think when most splits are proposed, even if they're perfectly logical responses reflecting real differences in community identities, the Commission will smile politely and bin the submission. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Nov 4, 2016 23:46:30 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. The actually don't look to bad. At least someone has noticed how hideous that 'West Staffordshire' is and the dogs dinner made of Meriden and Solihull. Thanks to the Greens for an at least somewhat logical suggestion. |
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122 
|
Post by rocky on Nov 5, 2016 1:33:07 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). No they didn't. No party or person proposed splitting Stockland green down slade road! |
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122
|
Post by rocky on Nov 5, 2016 1:56:22 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 woould 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 suspect Erdington and Kingstanding cancel each other out so Stockland Green and Tyburn are each roughly half the Labour majority. maybe they just thought Ladywood will change and they rather this change than something else's? Aston far more sensible than Tyburn in Ladywood Tories have definitely won Stockland Green recently (08?), don't think they have ever won tyburn? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 5, 2016 3:19:31 GMT
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. Thank you for the write-ups, Adrian. I am of the opinion that two- and three-word place names that are usually referred to by locals (and people who live nearby) by just one of those words, unless it causes a possible case of ambiguity elsewhere. This applies to certain towns I vaguely know such as Lyme Regis and South Woodham Ferrers. The latter might end up with its name in a seat once the current review is over. Therefore, since there are other places in the country with "Royal" in front of them (e.g. Tunbridge Wells) and just "Sutton" would invite confusion, I propose that the current Sutton Coldfield constituency name, rather than being lengthened, should in fact be shortened to simply "Coldfield". |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 5, 2016 8:17:23 GMT
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. I had that Brierley Hill split in my first attempt at the area... It does seem odd that they're proposing a ward split in Dudley but not in north Birmingham. (Is the Dudley one the only one they're proposing in the West Midlands?) Based on the Electoral Calculus figures (insert caveat here) including Tyburn instead of Stockland Green in Erdington reduces the notional Labour majority by about 1000. |
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122
|
Post by rocky on Nov 5, 2016 9:56:22 GMT
Yes thanks for the write ups Adrian, did the commissioners actually allow all this ethnic cleansing talk to stand?
If Tories had said that in reverse the outrage form the metropolitan left would have been huge, along with petitions demand resignations no doubt
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 5, 2016 9:59:19 GMT
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. I had that Brierley Hill split in my first attempt at the area... It does seem odd that they're proposing a ward split in Dudley but not in north Birmingham. (Is the Dudley one the only one they're proposing in the West Midlands?) Based on the Electoral Calculus figures (insert caveat here) including Tyburn instead of Stockland Green in Erdington reduces the notional Labour majority by about 1000.That sounds about right |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 5, 2016 11:19:39 GMT
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. Thank you for the write-ups, Adrian. I am of the opinion that two- and three-word place names that are usually referred to by locals (and people who live nearby) by just one of those words, unless it causes a possible case of ambiguity elsewhere. This applies to certain towns I vaguely know such as Lyme Regis and South Woodham Ferrers. The latter might end up with its name in a seat once the current review is over. Therefore, since there are other places in the country with "Royal" in front of them (e.g. Tunbridge Wells) and just "Sutton" would invite confusion, I propose that the current Sutton Coldfield constituency name, rather than being lengthened, should in fact be shortened to simply "Coldfield". No, Birmingham North is still the only reasonable name for the seat. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 5, 2016 11:39:36 GMT
Thank you for the write-ups, Adrian. I am of the opinion that two- and three-word place names that are usually referred to by locals (and people who live nearby) by just one of those words, unless it causes a possible case of ambiguity elsewhere. This applies to certain towns I vaguely know such as Lyme Regis and South Woodham Ferrers. The latter might end up with its name in a seat once the current review is over. Therefore, since there are other places in the country with "Royal" in front of them (e.g. Tunbridge Wells) and just "Sutton" would invite confusion, I propose that the current Sutton Coldfield constituency name, rather than being lengthened, should in fact be shortened to simply "Coldfield". No, Birmingham North is still the only reasonable name for the seat. You're both joking, right |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 5, 2016 11:45:46 GMT
Yes thanks for the write ups Adrian, did the commissioners actually allow all this ethnic cleansing talk to stand? If Tories had said that in reverse the outrage form the metropolitan left would have been huge, along with petitions demand resignations no doubt ACs don't intervene in submissions unless they're being factually incorrect about the process. Labour believe they're untouchable in Birmingham so they can virtually say/do what they like. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 5, 2016 21:23:59 GMT
No, Birmingham North is still the only reasonable name for the seat. You're both joking, right I wasn't about the general principle (the current 'Warwick & Lemington' would sound a lot worse as 'Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa', to take a nearby example for this region), but I was specificially not being entirely serious about 'Coldfield'. However, if the residents and MP of that town are going to disappear up their own backsides, then being demoted to 'Birmingham North' is the least they deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Nov 5, 2016 22:07:03 GMT
Neither the "idiotic rules", nor poppy nor mandragora nor all the drowsy syrups of the world, forced the Labour Party to put this little lot forward:  Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 5, 2016 22:14:40 GMT
Neither the "idiotic rules", nor poppy nor mandragora nor all the drowsy syrups of the world, forced the Labour Party to put this little lot forward: Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet.  |
|
|
|
Post by connorw on Nov 6, 2016 9:18:20 GMT
Yes thanks for the write ups Adrian, did the commissioners actually allow all this ethnic cleansing talk to stand? If Tories had said that in reverse the outrage form the metropolitan left would have been huge, along with petitions demand resignations no doubt *Rolls eyes* |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 6, 2016 10:21:14 GMT
That Northfield is pretty ugly, though I'm not convinced it's substantially worse (on a map at least) than the existing Hall Green. The really awful carve-up is in Bedworth. It has to be said that the general quality of a lot of the Labour submissions has left a lot to be desired this time. I suspect rather too many of the submissions were hurriedly drawn together and once they got the key seats the way they wanted them, they didn't spend enough time trying to make everything else look sensible.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 6, 2016 14:21:03 GMT
That Northfield is pretty ugly, though I'm not convinced it's substantially worse (on a map at least) than the existing Hall Green. The really awful carve-up is in Bedworth. It has to be said that the general quality of a lot of the Labour submissions has left a lot to be desired this time. I suspect rather too many of the submissions were hurriedly drawn together and once they got the key seats the way they wanted them, they didn't spend enough time trying to make everything else look sensible. The trouble is that, unless it's modified before submission, that thing is presumably going to get pride of place on the BCE's consultation website as the "official Labour Party submission" for the West Midlands. (That's how things worked last time.) Do we really want that? |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 6, 2016 16:17:33 GMT
That Northfield is pretty ugly, though I'm not convinced it's substantially worse (on a map at least) than the existing Hall Green. The really awful carve-up is in Bedworth. It has to be said that the general quality of a lot of the Labour submissions has left a lot to be desired this time. I suspect rather too many of the submissions were hurriedly drawn together and once they got the key seats the way they wanted them, they didn't spend enough time trying to make everything else look sensible. It is significantly worse than the current Hall Green. I know both areas well and to get from Balsall Heath to Hall Green is much easier than from Moseley to Longbridge. There are also substantial and growing commonalities of community in Hall Green which there wouldn't be in "Northfield" It is interesting that the Labour Party having spent a lot of time and effort for the Fifth Review insisting on the inseparability of Springfield and Sparkbrook now cast that aside and are happy to break up one of Birmingham's BAME majority seats. |
|
