Articles

2018 Review: Staffordshire

In News on June 10, 2016 by dadge Tagged: , , , , , ,

At the 2013 Review I was part of an ad hoc Team Newcastle, that persuaded the Boundary Commission not to split that fine Staffordshire town between seats. I’m sure the Commission will learn from its mistake, but the Kidsgrove Question remains: should that town be in a Newcastle seat or a Stoke seat? My decision is based on the knock-on effects through the rest of the Potteries.

A
Newcastle-under-Lyme 71622
Burslem, Tunstall & Kidsgrove 75725
Hanley 71730
Longton & Stone 73842

Advantages: Newcastle and hinterland in one seat. Reasonable inter-Stoke boundaries.
Disadvantages: Two seats crossing Stoke boundary.

B
Newcastle & Kidsgrove 73174
Hanley, Burslem & Tunstall 73835
Stoke Hulme 72866
Pirehill 73044

Advantages: Two seats wholly in Stoke. Less of Stoke in Stone seat.
Disadvantages: Newcastle separated from hinterland. Longton divided between seats.

Elsewhere there’s not much to consider except whether to put Hixon in Lichfield. It’s not strictly necessary but it does improve the pattern of constituencies.

staffs

Staffordshire Moorlands 78211
Burton 72542
Stafford 74779
South Staffs 75323
Cannock Chase 73470
Lichfield 74778
Tamworth 73305

Staffordshire in 1899

Advertisements

One Response to “2018 Review: Staffordshire”

  1. […] STAFFORDSHIRE […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: