DR POTHOLE NOT HAPPY ABOUT BOUNDARY CHANGES

[jawsbbc]

Councillor Mike McLaughlin
18 hrs ·
Have your say - Increase in the number of Councillors and Boundary changes:

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has decided that Hartlepool needs three more councillors to serve on Hartlepool Borough Council. This would take us from 33 councillors up to 36.

This is an unwelcome imposition by the Boundary commission upon the town and the Council. At a time of austerity and struggle by many, having to find the funds to pay for 3 more councillors will negatively impact upon the councils budget.

I also fear it will further degrade the relationship between the public and the Council. There is a palpable sense of dissatisfaction in areas with the council and I worry the council will be blamed for this numerical increase in councillors. Democracy is best served when the relationship between the elected and the electors is healthy.

The current proposals by the Boundary Commission are not based on natural community cohesion and do not not meet the Commissions own recommended number of electors per ward.

I urge you to complete the boundary commissions own consultation so they can hear your views.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/12866

[mala]

I think that most people would like to see a reduction in the number of Councillors rather than an increase.
So if it is determined that we need 12 Wards then let's have only 2 Councillors for each one then we might see some value for the 31% increase in allowences they gave themselves

[SRMoore]

Two points for Mike to take away.
1. The proposal to increase councillor numbers to 36 came from the Labour group.

2. There is no current proposal on boundary lines from the Boundary Commission so it is difficult to see how they are proposing something that goes against current community cohesion. Unless he is talking about the BCs proposal to increase councillor numbers to 36? In which case see point 1.

[seaton]

This was 6 years ago, Boundary changes mean that would-be councillors are chasing fewer seats, with the number of local wards reduced from 17 to 11, and councillors reduced from 47 to 33.
I understand the reason supposedly but after reducing the number of Wards and Councillors we are going to increase them again, more snouts in the trough.

[Inspector Knacker]

I never take any notice of what the bloke says. He's obviously twigged which way the winds blowing and altered course to suit.
He says he also fears it will further degrade the relationship between the public and rHe Council, or should that be Councillors. Er, they don't have one.
Then he resorts to the Benny Hill book of 'it's all down to the cuts guv'  mantra.
He's like the alien in those 50's films who turn up from the far reaches of space to tell us where we're going wrong and solves problems us poor earthlings find impossible with a mere click of his finger.
A Messiah sent to save us from a galaxy far, far away, the planet Two Ting.

I want to know exactly why someone who works and lives over 250 miles away would want to represent a council ward in a town he apparently has no connection to? Either he's earmarked for greater things and Hartlepools thick section of the electorate will presumably play along, or he likes riding on choo choos and politics and this allows him to combine the two?

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

I want to know exactly why someone who works and lives over 250 miles away would want to represent a council ward in a town he apparently has no connection to? Either he's earmarked for greater things and Hartlepools thick section of the electorate will presumably play along, or he likes riding on choo choos and politics and this allows him to combine the two?

David Dimbleby meets Thomas the Tank Engine?

[Inspector Knacker]

You've given me an idea now😀

[The Great Dictator]

   It should go back to 15 wards with 2 councillors on each.

[Inspector Knacker]

   It should go back to 15 wards with 1 councillor on each.

How about 15 wards with one Councillor . The buck stops there.
Far too many Albert RN's in the chamber.
For those unfamiliar with Albert, he was a dummy used to help in escapes from a P.O.W Camp and stood in the middle of the column supported by two men each side.

[The Great Dictator]

   It won't work Knacker, if one is off sick for 3 months the ward will have no representative.

[Inspector Knacker]

Some of them could be off for three years and we wouldn't spot the difference.

[The Great Dictator]

   It would become a full time job so the allowances would become minimum wage @ £16,000 a year.

[Inspector Knacker]

Sod it, I'll do it, a benign dictatorship. Zero hour contract

[The Great Dictator]

   Snout at the ready 

[Lord Elpus]

Interesting to read that Hartlepool Labour Party have put an objection in the the Councils submission to the Boundary Review;

'Local Government Boundary Commission: Electoral review of Hartlepool Borough Council - Hartlepool CLP submission.

- - -

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party objects in the strongest possible terms to the submissions being proposed by both Hartlepool Borough Council, and the councillors of the 'Hartlepool Independent Group', for new ward boundaries.

Introduction

The electoral review aims to recommend ward boundaries that:

1. ensure each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters
2. reflect the interests and identities of local communities
3. promote effective local government.

The proposals are made against the following statutory criteria:

• To deliver electoral equality. Each local Councillor should represent roughly the same number of people, which is reflected by a rather loose +/- 10% threshold from the average number of electors.
• To reflect community interests and local identities. Establishing electoral arrangements which, as far as possible, maintain local ties where boundaries are easily identifiable to promote effective and convenient local government.
• Ensuring that new wards can be represented effectively by their elected officials.

In creating the new ward patterns consideration must be given to several factors including:

• the geographic size of each proposed ward;
• the impact on community cohesion of community governance arrangements;
• levels of deprivation of each proposed ward.

Hartlepool CLP: Objections

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party objects to the proposals made as they fail to meet the statutory guidelines:

They do not deliver electoral equality

1. The proposed new wards fall outside the +/-10% threshold and overall the proposals do not deliver on the spirit of the statutory requirements, i.e. that each councillor should represent the same number of electors.

Under the Council's proposal the Park ward would comprise 5,577 electors, while the Hart ward is forecast to have 7,287, a difference of 1,710 electors. Within the submission from Hartlepool Independents Group this problem is further emphasised with their proposed Park ward having a smaller predicted population still (even allowing for planned developments). This is demonstrably iniquitous, unfair and so fails this key statutory test. Additionally, it is also fundamentally undemocratic, with electors in the proposed Park ward having a far greater voting power than those in others.

Current proposals do not reflect natural communities.

2. The Rural/Fens West wards in both submissions pairs the village of Hart with the conurbation of South Fens, which are not linked in any meaningful geographic or community way. They are in fact some 5 miles apart at opposite ends of the town.

3. Related to point 2, the community of Fens will be split, which has led to considerable public outcry from residents. Fens Residents Association have written to the Council's chief executive to protest these plans, this is an extract:

"The Fens is a distinct identifiable community with its school, shops, resident's association and newsletter. The present warding works well because of commonalities between the Fens and Rossmere, indeed community activists from both estates work together with the public and members to bring about environmental and social improvements. Your own criteria directs that under circumstances such as these communities should not be split, it would be the worst possible thing that you could do." – Robert Smith, Chair Fens Residents Association (29th July 2018)

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party backs residents in opposing these plans and believes that this represents a needless splitting of a well-defined community.

4. The proposed Hart/Hartfields wards do not include the village of Hart from where they take their name, this highlights the failure to reflect the importance of the village to the community cohesion of the ward.

5. The proposed Rural/Fens West wards largest areas of population are not, in fact, rural (South Fens), this creates a significant barrier and conflict when trying to establish a sustainable community identity.

6. The proposals for Burn Valley ward to take in parts of Foggy Furze move the Browning Avenue Baptist church out of the community it traditionally serves in Foggy Furze and places it within a ward with which it has far less affinity.

7. To compound this, in both proposals, Burn Valley loses Stranton primary school to Foggy Furze (as part of an area to the south). Stronton primary school typically serves the families and children of the Burn Valley community, not Foggy Furze.

Taken together points 7 and 8 demonstrate a basic lack of joined up thinking in the both submissions. Removing a church from one ward and a school from the other, needlessly disrupts local communities and should not happen.

8. The Headland and Harbour ward in both proposals fails to rectify the problem of not reflecting natural communities which stems from the last review. There was widespread disquiet at the pairing of the town's Headland and Burbank communities, which are geographically separate and share little in terms of community function. This review offers up the opportunity to change this, something which the Council's proposal fails to do.

Current proposals do not promote effective local Government

9. The current proposals do not consider geographic size, with the Rural/Fens West wards and Park wards bigger in geographic size than all other wards combined, making effective representation much more difficult.

In summary Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires the following statutory conditions to be met:

a) The need to secure that the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of members of the county council to be elected is, as nearly as possible, the same in every electoral area of the council.

The proposed submission fail on this point as evidenced above by the proposed Park wards, (both of which will vary greatly from the average).

b) The need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and in particular—
i. the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable, and
ii. the desirability of not breaking local ties when fixing boundaries.

The current proposals fail on both these points as evidenced here in terms of the pairing of Hart Village and South Fens, the division of the Fens estate overall, the absence of Hart from the Hart/Hartfields wards, the removal of prominent churches and schools from wards in a wholly unnecessary way in Burn Valley and Foggy Furze and the failure to rectify the Headland and Harbour issue as stated.

c) The need to secure effective and convenient local government.

The council's submission fails on this point as evidenced above, particularly in respect of the Rural/Fens West and Park wards geographical sizes.

Conclusion

Finally, Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party believes:

1. The proposals are unimaginative and seem focused upon fixing boundaries in such a way to cement political advantage.

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party flatly rejects any form of gerrymandering, no matter who it seeks to gain political advantage, and believes that wards should offer electoral equality, truly reflect local communities and promote effective local government.

2. The current proposals are wholly flawed, fail all statutory tests and should be rejected.

3. There has been a general failure to properly engage and consult the public on these proposals, hence they wholly unreflective of what residents want.

Hartlepool residents have expressed serious concerns over any changes to electoral boundaries and the inclusion further councillors onto Hartlepool Borough Council during these times of austerity. Hartlepool Labour Party reflects and supports these concerns and would ask that further consideration be given to the proposed changes with a more in depth public consultation being held prior to any decisions being made.

- - -

We would encourage all residents to use today as our last opportunity to oppose current HBC and Hartlepool Independent Group proposals. Please use this chance to request that further consideration be given to any proposed changes and a more in depth public consultation be held.

Please leave your thoughts in the comments below and click here to make a submission: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/have-your-say/12866...';